It's a question I've been grappling with for some time...
On the one hand, you have this institution that helped preserve peace during the Cold War,
but on the other hand, the Cold War is over, the Soviet Union is long gone, and with it, the WARSAW Pact...
What prompted this debate?
Well recently, I was watching Hardtalk (a current affairs programme on BBC television, youtube video below)
and the person interviewed was Lieutenant General Ben Hodges, Commander, US Army in Europe.
It was an interesting interview, but it did get me thinking about the threat of Russia and NATO's role in the 21st century.
Now, I'll play devil's advocate here. I'm under no illusion about the Putin regime in Russia, it's an autocracy, and not a very pleasant one, but the West deals with dodgy regimes the world over, Saudi Arabia springs to mind.
And yet, the threat of Russia starting a new 'Cold War' is a reason that is often cited for NATO's existence...
Now, continuing the devil's advocate theme, here's my problems with this premise, and here's some reason why I think NATO should go...
1) NATO is desperately searching for a purpose now that the Cold War is over, a reason to exist. Nowhere is this more clear than it's role in Afghanistan, which at the time, I found to be very strange...
2) Is Russia really a threat? Since the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia, has surrendered hundreds of thousands of square miles of territory. Hardly an example of an expansionist policy, and hardly the justification to keep NATO.
3) With regards to the Ukraine, Russia is only acting like a 'normal 'country by protecting its spheres of interest. The eastward expansion by NATO and the EU, could be seen to be a direct threat to Russia for obvious historical reasons, and of course, the double standards at play. the USA invades Iraq - that's protecting democracy, Russia intervenes in Ukraine, that's a new Cold War...
It could, therefore be argued, that NATO is engaging in a self fulfilling prophecy,and that by its actions, it makes war more likely, not less.
4) It's undemocratic - by locking countries into the alliance, it robs them of freedom of maneuver when it comes to foreign relations and diplomacy...
5) It's not working against terrorism. The attacks in France, and the rise of ISIS has shown NATO to be highly ineffective against this new threat. You can argue that NATO was never about combating something like this, and it would be a good point, but the focus on this old alliance robs nations of innovation and the ability to adapt to face the new threats of the 21st century...
6) China. Geopolitics has well and truly shifted to the East in the 21st century, so given the rise of China, and given the focus on Asia and the Pacific in the 21st century, an alliance that was formed to prevent war in Europe, has become somewhat obsolete...
To be honest, I'm really not sure if we need NATO or not. When it comes to Russia, I've long advocated realpolitik being the best course for dealing with Russia. As for the new challenges of the 21st century, the cornerstone of NATO, the USA, will probably be shifting its focus to Asia, leaving Europe to sort itself out...
We, in Europe, may need something new...
Here's the youtube link. Very interesting interview in my opinion.
NATO as a counterbalance to the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact obviously has long since passed. Even as an anti-Russian force, that's a somewhat less striking imperative than it once was, and even that was fading rapdily until Ukraine put the brakes on. Nobody thinks Russia is going to come through the Fulda Gap and dump 300 divisions into central Europe anymore, it's about ensuring that Russia can't do to Latvia or Romania what it did to Ukraine.
What NATO is today is a security cooperative of economically, culturally, socially, and politically linked nations acting in concert, an international armed force that can respond anywhere in the world. It serves as a stabilising and reassuring force amongst nations that once slaughtered each other by the millions. Anti-terrorist activity is at least as much, if not a greater, priority than conflict with Russia or any conventional conflict. From this perspective, NATO absolutely makes sense, and was why the concept of inviting Russia to join NATO was even floated at several points in the past.
NATO serves a purpose today, just not primarily the one it was originally intended to serve.
Vaktathi wrote: NATO as a counterbalance to the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact obviously has long since passed. Even as an anti-Russian force, that's a somewhat less striking imperative than it once was, and even that was fading rapdily until Ukraine put the brakes on. Nobody thinks Russia is going to come through the Fulda Gap and dump 300 divisions into central Europe anymore, it's about ensuring that Russia can't do to Latvia or Romania what it did to Ukraine.
What NATO is today is a security cooperative of economically, culturally, socially, and politically linked nations acting in concert, an international armed force that can respond anywhere in the world. It serves as a stabilising and reassuring force amongst nations that once slaughtered each other by the millions. Anti-terrorist activity is at least as much, if not a greater, priority than conflict with Russia or any conventional conflict. From this perspective, NATO absolutely makes sense, and was why the concept of inviting Russia to join NATO was even floated at several points in the past.
NATO serves a purpose today, just not primarily the one it was originally intended to serve.
But I'm arguing that NATO can be seen to be part of the problem. It's intervention in Libya helped create the mess we have today, its Afghanistan intervention was bizarre to say the least, and its eastward expansion, aided by the EU, could be argued as militarism.
Far from keeping the peace, it could be siad it's helping to destroy the peace!
Something to keep in mind is that NATO is untested in times of war...The treaty itself quarantees pretty much NOTHING as it basically just requires to give support but WHAT support is up for country.
There's people in Finland claiming we should join NATO as a insurance against Russian but even if we were member NATO members could simply decide reprimand of Russia is appropriate support and that would fulfil requirements of contract...Maybe throw in some medical aid as an added bonus.
It's somewhat telling even USA didn't try to call in for that NATO article after 2001 even though they could have and went for other route to get military support they wanted...
It absolutely can be part of the problem in many instances. That said, even if NATO didnt exist, constituent nations may have acted on their own in Libya or any one of many other conflicts. The constituent nations can also act as a brake on each other as well within the NATO structure.
At the same time, I'll also take the problems of NATO over the butchery the constituent nations committed on each other in the past. Small scale conflicts on Libya is unfortunate, but it's better than reliving another Verdun.
tneva82 wrote: Something to keep in mind is that NATO is untested in times of war...The treaty itself quarantees pretty much NOTHING as it basically just requires to give support but WHAT support is up for country.
There's people in Finland claiming we should join NATO as a insurance against Russian but even if we were member NATO members could simply decide reprimand of Russia is appropriate support and that would fulfil requirements of contract...Maybe throw in some medical aid as an added bonus.
It's somewhat telling even USA didn't try to call in for that NATO article after 2001 even though they could have and went for other route to get military support they wanted...
You have to remember that NATO goes from the Superpower that is the USA and all its might, to tiny Luxembourg with an army of only 1,000 men, which is probably smaller than most American police forces
So obviously, the support varies from country to country.
Finland is an excellent example of a country that borders Russia, but which doesn't have any problems with Russia. One of the justifications of the Baltic states being in NATO is that it deters Russian aggression, but Finland seems to do fine. Perhaps the Russians still remember the Winter War, and the stubborn Finnish resistance?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: It absolutely can be part of the problem in many instances. That said, even if NATO didnt exist, constituent nations may have acted on their own in Libya or any one of many other conflicts. The constituent nations can also act as a brake on each other as well within the NATO structure.
At the same time, I'll also take the problems of NATO over the butchery the constituent nations committed on each other in the past. Small scale conflicts on Libya is unfortunate, but it's better than reliving another Verdun.
Given the nature of Western European societies, and given the destructive power of modern weapons is common knowledge, it's extremely unlikely we'll ever see another war in Western Europe, and thank God for that.
Plus your own country has too many business interests in Europe, and would soon put a stop to any trouble that threatened them...
The focus of the 21st century is shifting east IMO, and the West needs to adapt to that.
NATO as a anti-Warsaw Pact is dead and done, but especially with so many people worried about a resurgent Russia, and Middle Eastern Terrorism, it's not hard for NATO to find something else to occupy its time and budget with. Outside of its military value, it has diplomatic and economic value by building ties between countries, so it's not even strictly military. It's kind of a moot point. The question will never be "is NATO needed" but "does NATO do anything useful." So long as the later is true the former is true enough (or the answer just doesn't really matter).
Plus your own country has too many business interests in Europe, and would soon put a stop to any trouble that threatened them...
Just saying, this is the logic people had about Europe in 1913; that the economic ties and growing bonds between countries made war less likely. Then 1914 happened.
Finland is an excellent example of a country that borders Russia, but which doesn't have any problems with Russia. One of the justifications of the Baltic states being in NATO is that it deters Russian aggression, but Finland seems to do fine. Perhaps the Russians still remember the Winter War, and the stubborn Finnish resistance?
Finland is of much lower strategic value. The baltic states are in the path of the meatgrinder from both sides and has much more recent memories of what they would consider occupation. Finland is not in such a path and is ruinous to traverse and supply through, there's very little to be gained in mucking about in Finland.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: It absolutely can be part of the problem in many instances. That said, even if NATO didnt exist, constituent nations may have acted on their own in Libya or any one of many other conflicts. The constituent nations can also act as a brake on each other as well within the NATO structure.
At the same time, I'll also take the problems of NATO over the butchery the constituent nations committed on each other in the past. Small scale conflicts on Libya is unfortunate, but it's better than reliving another Verdun.
Given the nature of Western European societies, and given the destructive power of modern weapons is common knowledge, it's extremely unlikely we'll ever see another war in Western Europe, and thank God for that.
Right, but NATO also plays a part in shaping those societies so that conflict is no longer seen as an option, and all those modern weapons were created by NATO nations and shared amongst each other and standardized upon. NATO plays a strong role in those factors.
Plus your own country has too many business interests in Europe, and would soon put a stop to any trouble that threatened them...
many of the same arguments were out forth on the eve of WW1. In most cases I would agree however, but NATO is also one of the best tools for resolving any such trouble amongst members.
The focus of the 21st century is shifting east IMO, and the West needs to adapt to that.
And it has been, the middle east hass seen large amounts of NATO activity, and increasingly we see it in the Pacific as well.
LordofHats wrote: NATO as a anti-Warsaw Pact is dead and done, but especially with so many people worried about a resurgent Russia, and Middle Eastern Terrorism, it's not hard for NATO to find something else to occupy its time and budget with. Outside of its military value, it has diplomatic and economic value by building ties between countries, so it's not even strictly military. It's kind of a moot point. The question will never be "is NATO needed" but "does NATO do anything useful." So long as the later is true the former is true enough (or the answer just doesn't really matter).
Plus your own country has too many business interests in Europe, and would soon put a stop to any trouble that threatened them...
Just saying, this is the logic people had about Europe in 1913; that the economic ties and growing bonds between countries made war less likely. Then 1914 happened.
Should have mentioned this point in my OP, but what about your own nation?
Trump has started a debate about NATO, and whatever your opinion of Trump is the fact that this debate was started is important.
Personally, I detect a slight weariness with NATO in the USA. There's grumbles about other countries not pulling their weight, and of course, the pivot to the Pacific is an important geo-political shift for the USA...
I'm not saying the USA isn't interested in NATO anymore, but it could taek its eye of the ball, and NATO's importance may slowly be eroded in American eyes...
Trump has started a debate about NATO, and whatever your opinion of Trump is the fact that this debate was started is important.
Trump didn't start anything. Lots of people have questioned NATO over the years. There's nothing new about it.
There's always been a branch of American politics that equate any international agreement with "global conspiracy taking over mah country!" Loonies have been doing it with the UN for more than half a century. NATO just wasn't usually a target because that same branch of politics expects the US to be the biggest and strongest boy in the war band. If that sound stupid, it is. This particular branch of US politics has never been very intelligent, so its hardly surprising that Trump would cash in on it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ustrello wrote: Whoops I voted yes by mistake, you should really title it should nato be disbanded to match the poll instead of pulling the old bait and switch
I did the same thing lol. A lesson about reading the poll before assuming that the poll question will be the same as the thread title eh
Finland is an excellent example of a country that borders Russia, but which doesn't have any problems with Russia. One of the justifications of the Baltic states being in NATO is that it deters Russian aggression, but Finland seems to do fine. Perhaps the Russians still remember the Winter War, and the stubborn Finnish resistance?
Finland is of much lower strategic value. The baltic states are in the path of the meatgrinder from both sides and has much more recent memories of what they would consider occupation. Finland is not in such a path and is ruinous to traverse and supply through, there's very little to be gained in mucking about in Finland.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: It absolutely can be part of the problem in many instances. That said, even if NATO didnt exist, constituent nations may have acted on their own in Libya or any one of many other conflicts. The constituent nations can also act as a brake on each other as well within the NATO structure.
At the same time, I'll also take the problems of NATO over the butchery the constituent nations committed on each other in the past. Small scale conflicts on Libya is unfortunate, but it's better than reliving another Verdun.
Given the nature of Western European societies, and given the destructive power of modern weapons is common knowledge, it's extremely unlikely we'll ever see another war in Western Europe, and thank God for that.
Right, but NATO also plays a part in shaping those societies so that conflict is no longer seen as an option, and all those modern weapons were created by NATO nations and shared amongst each other and standardized upon. NATO plays a strong role in those factors.
Plus your own country has too many business interests in Europe, and would soon put a stop to any trouble that threatened them...
many of the same arguments were out forth on the eve of WW1. In most cases I would agree however, but NATO is also one of the best tools for resolving any such trouble amongst members.
The focus of the 21st century is shifting east IMO, and the West needs to adapt to that.
And it has been, the middle east hass seen large amounts of NATO activity, and increasingly we see it in the Pacific as well.
Even though I spent the last 6 months arguing the opposite, you could argue that the European Union did a hell of a lot to preserve peace in Europe, and it wasn't just a NATO thing.
It really hurt me to say that
On a serious note, having been interested in foreign policy, military history American politics etc etc and having watched that interview, I am slightly concerned about the cutbacks in the US military.
Obviously, its an American issue, but if Congress or the DoD, or the military, or whoever, keep the cutbacks, the US military may not be able to fulfill all its oversees commitments. and might say, lets focus on Asia.
The obvious solution is for other comments to pull their weight, which I support, but here in the UK, we're cutting back big time as well. People might argue, if the USA is cutting back, we'll cut back, and so you get this spiral of erosion.
That's not new in history, but you could see NATO die of neglect. We are, after all, going through a recession...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ustrello wrote: Whoops I voted yes by mistake, you should really title it should nato be disbanded to match the poll instead of pulling the old bait and switch
Russia may be an autocracy, but I can assure you it is in fact a pleasant one. Pleasant to live in, that is (unless, you have no job, than it seriously sucks).
But no, Nato is long overdue. It is a relic from the days of the Cold War, and its warmongering and expansionism in efforts to "stay relevant" has become a huge liability for peace and security in Europe. Dissolving NATO would bring some much needed stability as Russia would sleep a bit better at night (Russia is seriously paranoid about being invaded by NATO)
Besides, nowadays NATO is mostly just the US. Most European countries in it are barely contributing anything anymore.
Iron_Captain wrote: Russia may be an autocracy, but I can assure you it is in fact a pleasant one. Pleasant to live in, that is (unless, you have no job, than it seriously sucks).
Unless you're LGBT, then you might get beaten up in the street and discrimination against you is legal.
Iron_Captain wrote: Russia may be an autocracy, but I can assure you it is in fact a pleasant one. Pleasant to live in, that is (unless, you have no job, than it seriously sucks).
Unless you're LGBT, then you might get beaten up in the street and discrimination against you is legal.
Iron_Captain wrote: Russia may be an autocracy, but I can assure you it is in fact a pleasant one. Pleasant to live in, that is (unless, you have no job, than it seriously sucks).
Unless you're LGBT, then you might get beaten up in the street and discrimination against you is legal.
Iron_Captain wrote: Russia may be an autocracy, but I can assure you it is in fact a pleasant one. Pleasant to live in, that is (unless, you have no job, than it seriously sucks).
Unless you're LGBT, then you might get beaten up in the street and discrimination against you is legal.
Well, I am a member of the protestant church, and live is still pretty pleasant here But you guys, apart from lacking any serious knowledge or experience of Russia, are also seriously taking this off topic. On the first page that is...
Even though I spent the last 6 months arguing the opposite, you could argue that the European Union did a hell of a lot to preserve peace in Europe, and it wasn't just a NATO thing.
It really hurt me to say that
oh absolutely it has, without a doubt, but NATO is deeply entrenched within that system as well. No one thing can be pointed to as the sole stabilizing factor, but both NATO and thEU have played enormous roles in that regard, and are intertwined in many ways.
On a serious note, having been interested in foreign policy, military history American politics etc etc and having watched that interview, I am slightly concerned about the cutbacks in the US military.
Obviously, its an American issue, but if Congress or the DoD, or the military, or whoever, keep the cutbacks, the US military may not be able to fulfill all its oversees commitments. and might say, lets focus on Asia.
The bigger issue is allocation. The US military has no problem with raw funding. In fact, it could probably lose 13 digits worth of funding and still be capable...*if* the money was put where it was needed. The problem with funding quite frankly is one of graft, waste, and inefficiency.
The obvious solution is for other comments to pull their weight, which I support, but here in the UK, we're cutting back big time as well. People might argue, if the USA is cutting back, we'll cut back, and so you get this spiral of erosion.
That's not new in history, but you could see NATO die of neglect. We are, after all, going through a recession...
always a possibility, but not likely any time soon methinks. The big issue there is the US internal politics have gone full slow.
Iron_Captain wrote: Russia may be an autocracy, but I can assure you it is in fact a pleasant one. Pleasant to live in, that is (unless, you have no job, than it seriously sucks).
well, also unless you're active in political opposition, they have a habit of ending up dead or in jail.
But no, Nato is long overdue. It is a relic from the days of the Cold War, and its warmongering and expansionism in efforts to "stay relevant" has become a huge liability for peace and security in Europe. Dissolving NATO would bring some much needed stability as Russia would sleep a bit better at night (Russia is seriously paranoid about being invaded by NATO)
I think this goes both ways, there are people and places that are still certain that the Red Army is going to come swooping in as soon as it gets the chance, and Crimea only confirmed those fears, putting the brakes on the long decline of European armies. Both sides have history to fear each other. That said, I'm not sure a dissolution of NATO would solve anything, especially as a replacement organization would almost certainly arise with most of the same partners and each constituent nation would feel the need to expand their forces and arsenals without the US to count on.
Iron_Captain wrote: Russia may be an autocracy, but I can assure you it is in fact a pleasant one. Pleasant to live in, that is (unless, you have no job, than it seriously sucks).
But no, Nato is long overdue. It is a relic from the days of the Cold War, and its warmongering and expansionism in efforts to "stay relevant" has become a huge liability for peace and security in Europe. Dissolving NATO would bring some much needed stability as Russia would sleep a bit better at night (Russia is seriously paranoid about being invaded by NATO)
Besides, nowadays NATO is mostly just the US. Most European countries in it are barely contributing anything anymore.
This is a NATO thread for NATO members only!
Any criticism of a dakka member who lives in a NATO country, is considered a criticism of every dakka member who lives in a NATO country
Only joking.
I'm not a supporter of Putin's Russia by any stretch of the imagination, but Russia's foreign policy, makes sense.
Russian interests in the Ukraine are threatened, Putin intervenes. Russia's ally, Syria is threatened, Putin intervenes.
You may not agree with it, but it's rational from a realpolitik perspective.
NATO and the EU on the other hand, seem to be floundering about looking for a role.
This might not be popular, but if it were up to me, I'd defuse the whole Ukraine situation between NATO and Russia by having both sides come to a deal that sees Ukraine become non-aligned, much like Austria was during the Cold War. This gives Russia a 'buffer' and in return, NATO and the EU get guarantees from Russia not to interfere in the Baltic and the Ukraine.
Ukraine won't get to join NATO as a result, but it's free to trade equally with the EU and Russia.
Even though I spent the last 6 months arguing the opposite, you could argue that the European Union did a hell of a lot to preserve peace in Europe, and it wasn't just a NATO thing.
It really hurt me to say that
oh absolutely it has, without a doubt, but NATO is deeply entrenched within that system as well. No one thing can be pointed to as the sole stabilizing factor, but both NATO and thEU have played enormous roles in that regard, and are intertwined in many ways.
On a serious note, having been interested in foreign policy, military history American politics etc etc and having watched that interview, I am slightly concerned about the cutbacks in the US military.
Obviously, its an American issue, but if Congress or the DoD, or the military, or whoever, keep the cutbacks, the US military may not be able to fulfill all its oversees commitments. and might say, lets focus on Asia.
The bigger issue is allocation. The US military has no problem with raw funding. In fact, it could probably lose 13 digits worth of funding and still be capable...*if* the money was put where it was needed. The problem with funding quite frankly is one of graft, waste, and inefficiency.
The obvious solution is for other comments to pull their weight, which I support, but here in the UK, we're cutting back big time as well. People might argue, if the USA is cutting back, we'll cut back, and so you get this spiral of erosion.
That's not new in history, but you could see NATO die of neglect. We are, after all, going through a recession...
always a possibility, but not likely any time soon methinks. The big issue there is the US internal politics have gone full slow.
Iron_Captain wrote: Russia may be an autocracy, but I can assure you it is in fact a pleasant one. Pleasant to live in, that is (unless, you have no job, than it seriously sucks).
well, also unless you're active in political opposition, they have a habit of ending up dead or in jail.
But no, Nato is long overdue. It is a relic from the days of the Cold War, and its warmongering and expansionism in efforts to "stay relevant" has become a huge liability for peace and security in Europe. Dissolving NATO would bring some much needed stability as Russia would sleep a bit better at night (Russia is seriously paranoid about being invaded by NATO)
I think this goes both ways, there are people and places that are still certain that the Red Army is going to come swooping in as soon as it gets the chance, and Crimea only confirmed those fears, putting the brakes on the long decline of European armies. Both sides have history to fear each other. That said, I'm not sure a dissolution of NATO would solve anything, especially as a replacement organization would almost certainly arise with most of the same partners and each constituent nation would feel the need to expand their forces and arsenals without the US to count on.
Let me give you the state of the British Military:
Our army has been cut from 100,000 men to 80,000 men.
Our new aircraft carriers are still being built. Our destroyers are at port suffering mechanical problems, and there's no deadline for building the new destroyers.
We have more admirals than fighting ships!!!
To cut a long story short, we'd struggle to defend Britain, never mind fulfill NATO obligations...
So when you see and hear about the USA getting jittery about NATO or defense spending, I am slightly concerned.
I know this is not fair on the average US taxpayer, but if the USA doesn't do the heavy lifting, then who will?
After being bruised by the Iraq and Afghanistan experience, I wouldn't blame America for withdrawing slightly from the world...
If that sounds like an argument for NATO, then its not meant too.
I think the Big 3 in Europe: Britain, France, Germany, need to come to a new arrangement for defence and security, and let the USA focus on the Pacific.
Hell, when we got involved in Libya, we nearly ran out of missles after 2 days, and need the US military to bail us out!
I dont think any major power has stockpiles of munitions sufficient for a large scale conventional conflict. The US ran out of cruise missiles when bombing Serbia
Quite frankly, if any war erupted with the scale of a WW1 or WW2, equipment and munitions could not be readily replaced by any party adequately. The US hasnt made a new M1 tank hull in over twenty years (new tanks are stripped and rebuilt old M1's). Replacing most aircraft would be impossible as the production lines and tooling no longer exists, and even if it did they couldnt possibly produce at the speed necessary. You just cant build an F22 in 18 hours the way we could a P51, the thing is just far too complex. Cruise Missiles cannot be produced by the millions the way old Artillery shells could. This goes for all major nations.
That said, yes the nations if Europe have drawn down heavily, but they are starting to reverse that trend, with conscription even being talked about again in Germany for instance. I dont think there is any question that European armies will have to be heavily rebuilt if they want to remain functional.
I think NATO's primary mission today is to facilitate military cooperation and coordination between member nations while also allowing for countries such as the US to maintain a "forward" posture. It also acts as a de facto foreign policy forum for the member nations.
Also, if NATO were to break up, could any of the member states outside of Germany, France, Britain and Turkey really be capable of defending themselves?Would they become victim to a similar type of bi-lateral bullying that China is practicing in the Pacific? Would a new arms race start as nations try to make up for the loss of combat power that the US provided? What destabilizing effect would this have on those countries economy's and societies?
So it would seem to me the biggest reason NATO still and will continue to exist is NATO members are ill prepared for a world without NATO.
Iron_Captain wrote: Russia may be an autocracy, but I can assure you it is in fact a pleasant one. Pleasant to live in, that is (unless, you have no job, than it seriously sucks).
Unless you're LGBT, then you might get beaten up in the street and discrimination against you is legal.
Well, I am a member of the protestant church, and live is still pretty pleasant here But you guys, apart from lacking any serious knowledge or experience of Russia, are also seriously taking this off topic. On the first page that is...
Agreed, lets focus on NATO.
"Best to nuke the site from orbit. its the only way to be sure."
-Vladimir "Party Man" Putin
Vaktathi wrote: You just cant build an F22 in 18 hours the way we could a P51, the thing is just far too complex.
Not just that, but most countries borderline bankrupt themselves in war. Check my math on this, but a P51 was $51k (just pulled the number from wikipedia) in 1945. Adjusting for inflation, a P51 now would cost $661,000. Given the cost of a modern arsenal, who the hell can afford conventional warfare? The F22 is 150 mill, and the F35 is just under 100. Even if we math out the savings of mass production, its still gotta be a metric ton..
Vaktathi wrote: You just cant build an F22 in 18 hours the way we could a P51, the thing is just far too complex.
Not just that, but most countries borderline bankrupt themselves in war. Check my math on this, but a P51 was $51k (just pulled the number from wikipedia) in 1945. Adjusting for inflation, a P51 now would cost $661,000. Given the cost of a modern arsenal, who the hell can afford conventional warfare? The F22 is 150 mill, and the F35 is just under 100. Even if we math out the savings of mass production, its still gotta be a metric ton..
That's just the thing - nobody is engaging in 'conventional' warfare these days.
In this day and age, nobody is stupid enough to take on the USA at a conventional shooting match - they'd lose every time, and they know it.
Instead, as we've seen with Iraq and Afghanistan, it's asymmetrical warfare - the drip drip drip of American casualties, for understandable reasons, upsets people back home. It worked in Vietnam, and it's worked, to an extent, in Iraq as well.
Even going forward, a country like China knows that its seaboard is vulnerable to US carrier groups going back and forth laying waste to its coastal cities, so It's adopting an area denial approach/hybrid warfare approach, as much as I can gather from my limited military knowledge.
NATO, as an institution, was obviously founded to primarily stop Red Army Tank Divisions from steamrolling through Europe, but those days are over.
In the 21st century, with terrorism being more of a threat, we need something more nimble and adaptable, and I don't think NATO fits that bill.
Vaktathi wrote: You just cant build an F22 in 18 hours the way we could a P51, the thing is just far too complex.
Not just that, but most countries borderline bankrupt themselves in war. Check my math on this, but a P51 was $51k (just pulled the number from wikipedia) in 1945. Adjusting for inflation, a P51 now would cost $661,000. Given the cost of a modern arsenal, who the hell can afford conventional warfare? The F22 is 150 mill, and the F35 is just under 100. Even if we math out the savings of mass production, its still gotta be a metric ton..
aye, the cost, time, and complexity involved in building these machines and munitions is multiple orders of magnitude greater than in the past, any extended intense conventional conflict that avoided somehow going nuclear would very quickly see itself flounder relatively fast once all the vehicles start becoming casualties themselves with no effective way to replace them.
NATO is nothing more than a piece of paper. The actual organization is not contractually obligated to a specific organization. It can reorganize itself at will. NATO is no more or less capable of adapting to counter-terrorism than any other armed force. EDIT: In fact, a multinational organization is probably better than a national one, or a loose organization of national forces.
Lord of Deeds wrote: I think NATO's primary mission today is to facilitate military cooperation and coordination between member nations while also allowing for countries such as the US to maintain a "forward" posture. It also acts as a de facto foreign policy forum for the member nations.
Also, if NATO were to break up, could any of the member states outside of Germany, France, Britain and Turkey really be capable of defending themselves?Would they become victim to a similar type of bi-lateral bullying that China is practicing in the Pacific? Would a new arms race start as nations try to make up for the loss of combat power that the US provided? What destabilizing effect would this have on those countries economy's and societies?
So it would seem to me the biggest reason NATO still and will continue to exist is NATO members are ill prepared for a world without NATO.
These are sound reasons, but I think going forward, the three biggest likely flashpoints will be these:
1) The Middle East, and something involving Iran Vs. Saudi Arabia, or Israel Vs. somebody.
2) Russia Vs. China in Eastern Siberia. Russia gained chunks of Siberia from China through the unequal treaties, and a strong China may decide that it wants these mineral rich areas back...
3) Trouble on the Korean Peninsular...
I don't see what NATO could do in these situations, it would be hard to justify its presence, and even harder to sell the idea that NATO needs to intervene to a skeptical Western public...
Vaktathi wrote: I dont think any major power has stockpiles of munitions sufficient for a large scale conventional conflict. The US ran out of cruise missiles when bombing Serbia
Quite frankly, if any war erupted with the scale of a WW1 or WW2, equipment and munitions could not be readily replaced by any party adequately. The US hasnt made a new M1 tank hull in over twenty years (new tanks are stripped and rebuilt old M1's). Replacing most aircraft would be impossible as the production lines and tooling no longer exists, and even if it did they couldnt possibly produce at the speed necessary. You just cant build an F22 in 18 hours the way we could a P51, the thing is just far too complex. Cruise Missiles cannot be produced by the millions the way old Artillery shells could. This goes for all major nations.
Why do you think Russia has such a ridiculous amount of artillery and tanks in storage? (more in fact, than all other armies in the world combined?) Exactly, when the US runs out of cruise missiles and fancy aircraft, Russia will conquer the world in good old fashioned Red Army steamroller style! The weak, liberast West with its effiminate "modernisations" will feel the wrath of our so-called "outdated" armies!
But yeah, outside of the power fantasies of an overly patriotic teenager , I don't think Russia is going to invade anyone (well, maybe we'll invade just a little, like in Ukraine... ) and WW1 or WW2 style conflicts aren't very likely anymore in the current world. European armies don't need to be large (conscription would just be ridiculous), that'd just be a waste of money. What kind of threats would you have such an army fight? They just need to be able to respond to potential threats much quicker than they currently can.
Iron_Captain wrote: Russia may be an autocracy, but I can assure you it is in fact a pleasant one. Pleasant to live in, that is (unless, you have no job, than it seriously sucks).
But no, Nato is long overdue. It is a relic from the days of the Cold War, and its warmongering and expansionism in efforts to "stay relevant" has become a huge liability for peace and security in Europe. Dissolving NATO would bring some much needed stability as Russia would sleep a bit better at night (Russia is seriously paranoid about being invaded by NATO)
Besides, nowadays NATO is mostly just the US. Most European countries in it are barely contributing anything anymore.
This is a NATO thread for NATO members only!
Russian spies are everywhere, comrade. Including in this very thread! In fact, everyone in this thread could be a Russian sleeper agent, and we'd never know!
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: NATO and the EU on the other hand, seem to be floundering about looking for a role.
This might not be popular, but if it were up to me, I'd defuse the whole Ukraine situation between NATO and Russia by having both sides come to a deal that sees Ukraine become non-aligned, much like Austria was during the Cold War. This gives Russia a 'buffer' and in return, NATO and the EU get guarantees from Russia not to interfere in the Baltic and the Ukraine.
Ukraine won't get to join NATO as a result, but it's free to trade equally with the EU and Russia.
Everybody sleeps easy at night.
That'd be a great idea. It'd be a great solution for Russia, it is exactly the buffer zone Russia is currently creating through frozen conflict, but without the effort and costs of keeping the conflict in balance. Unfortenately Ukraine and NATO are unlikely to ever agree to such a thing. And the people of Donbass would probably also like to add a few choice words to any deal that involves them having to stay in Ukraine (understandably, they don't want that anymore, after being bombed by Ukraine for so long).
NATO is still very relevant, particularly as a response and check in that part of the world. Just because there's no Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union has fallen, doesn't mean there aren't instances...insert news here...where NATO's influence and ability to respond is needed.
There's some great stuff for just cooperating with other NATO nations for training purposes. Having the formal organization does make life easier in that respect for dealing with a wide array of what would be allies regardless of NATO's existence. Further, the arrangement also helps in cooperation for technology and intelligence. Now, without NATO, much of that would stay in place, as most NATO nations would still look to be friendly and cooperate with the American military, thus leading everyone to adhere to pseudo-American standards of operating during war.
That said, as a political entity serving to counter the Warsaw Pact, yeah, its old. Crimea is an interesting case for NATO and its relevance, but ultimately the result would have been the same and will likely be the same in future events regardless of NATO's existence.
Besides, if NATO stopped tomorrow, it'd only be excuse for our government to drop the charade of even pretending to care about our military. At least the pay is good, because our funding and acquisitions have never been worse. Dissolving NATO would likely worsen that for Canuckistan in particular.
Whoops. I voted wrong. Your discussion title and your poll question are oppositely worded and you will get inaccurate results. Consider changing your title or your question.
I'm pretty supportive of NATO. I think it helps keep a lot of the smaller countries in Europe from being bullied. It doesn't really have any really negatives, and allows for a much more streamlined co-operative operations between countries.
I think the Big 3 in Europe: Britain, France, Germany, need to come to a new arrangement for defence and security, and let the USA focus on the Pacific.
But, didn't you guys just decide you didn't want to play with the rest of Europe anymore?
Gordon Shumway wrote: Whoops. I voted wrong. Your discussion title and your poll question are oppositely worded and you will get inaccurate results. Consider changing your title or your question.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Whoops. I voted wrong. Your discussion title and your poll question are oppositely worded and you will get inaccurate results. Consider changing your title or your question.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: You have to remember that NATO goes from the Superpower that is the USA and all its might, to tiny Luxembourg with an army of only 1,000 men, which is probably smaller than most American police forces
So obviously, the support varies from country to country.
Yeah but again. Let's say Finland is part of NATO. Russia invades NATO. USA decides it's not in THEIR interests to send troops to fight for us. What they do?
Say to Russia "stop your attack and return to your area".
NATO deal 100% followed by law. THAT'S how little quarantees NATO gives to members.
And even without NATO deal if USA decides it would be in best interest of them you think they wouldn't/couldn't help?
It boils down to does USA feel it's in their interest to send their troops to die for our sake. NATO contract itself is no quarantee whatsoever. Something many Finns keeps forgetting. They just froth "Russia. Must be in NATO".
Would be funny to see their face if we were, Russia attacked and then USA decided they don't want to fight Russia for something as trivial as Finland. Would be sweet "told ya so" moment except I would be trying to escape Finland in a hurry(doubtful USA even COULD send troops in time before Finland's military would be crushed and Finland conquered anyway)
Finland is an excellent example of a country that borders Russia, but which doesn't have any problems with Russia. One of the justifications of the Baltic states being in NATO is that it deters Russian aggression, but Finland seems to do fine. Perhaps the Russians still remember the Winter War, and the stubborn Finnish resistance?
Finland is of much lower strategic value. The baltic states are in the path of the meatgrinder from both sides and has much more recent memories of what they would consider occupation. Finland is not in such a path and is ruinous to traverse and supply through, there's very little to be gained in mucking about in Finland.
Yeah. If Finland WOULD be worthy for Russia we would have been CONQUERED in WW2. As it was our armies were crushed both times in the end. In Winter War it wasn't just worth the time to occupy for good what with impeding Nazi German attack. Then on '44 Russia had bigger prize in target. Germany and maybe even France though D-Day got in the way(though at least saved our butts when Russia was in a hurry to get as far to central Europe as possible before USA&Brits gets too far).
What Russia would be looking here anyway? Position isn't that important. Not much in terms of minerals either. Our economy isn't that strong so taking over that(especially with what damage war would cause) is useless. Guess if Russia would find itself in shortage of trees...
We are best protected by the fact this is so insignificant section it ain't worth risking bigger war :lol: Now if Russia would get into bigger war already sure taking us out would be more feasible and likely quite doable but starting big war for small gains...
Iron_Captain wrote: Russia may be an autocracy, but I can assure you it is in fact a pleasant one. Pleasant to live in, that is (unless, you have no job, than it seriously sucks).
Unless you're LGBT, then you might get beaten up in the street and discrimination against you is legal.
A privately-owned Russian television channel reran a documentary from 2012 which claimed the Titanic was sunk partly due to a conspiracy by Jews.
REN-TV aired the anti-Semitic documentary last month, according to the Coordination Forum for Countering anti-Semitism.
The documentary suggested a “group of 300” Jews, freemasons and “illluminati” had sunk the ship in 1912 to provoke an international crisis and install themselves as leaders of a world government, a central theme of anti-Semitism conspiracy theories.
The 2012 version of the documentary used the past tense, suggesting that the attempt was in the past and ultimately unsuccessful. However, REN-TV’s airing of the documentary was edited to use the present tense, as well as to link the conspiracy to various more recent events, including the Chernobyl disaster, 9/11, and the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The Federation of Jewish Communities in Russia has already expressed concern about what the rise of such ideas in Russia could mean for the Jewish community. Separately, Federation on Monday urged Russia’s new education minister Olga Vasilyeva to clarify her attitude to the era of terror under Joseph Stalin, following statements attributed to her suggesting that she had praised the efficiency of state organizations under the Soviet dictator, Interfax reported.
I think the Big 3 in Europe: Britain, France, Germany, need to come to a new arrangement for defence and security, and let the USA focus on the Pacific.
But, didn't you guys just decide you didn't want to play with the rest of Europe anymore?
Nah, we still want to play with Europe, we just don't want those foreigners taking our jobs. I think.
BigWaaagh wrote: NATO is still very relevant, particularly as a response and check in that part of the world. Just because there's no Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union has fallen, doesn't mean there aren't instances...insert news here...where NATO's influence and ability to respond is needed.
Libya I could understand, given its close proximity to Europe, but Afghanistan? That was stretching it a bit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gordon Shumway wrote: Whoops. I voted wrong. Your discussion title and your poll question are oppositely worded and you will get inaccurate results. Consider changing your title or your question.
C'mon, don't give the American education system a bad name
Gordon Shumway wrote: Whoops. I voted wrong. Your discussion title and your poll question are oppositely worded and you will get inaccurate results. Consider changing your title or your question.
I made the same error.
C'mon don't give the Australian education system a bad name
On a serious note, one reason cited for NATO's continued existence is its ability to deal with issues and problems the world over. Logically, I'm surprised Australia and New Zealand haven't been 'persuaded' to join.
After all, those two nations cooperate closely with other Western Nations on a ton of security and military issues, and their membership would make sense from that point of view.
There's some great stuff for just cooperating with other NATO nations for training purposes. Having the formal organization does make life easier in that respect for dealing with a wide array of what would be allies regardless of NATO's existence. Further, the arrangement also helps in cooperation for technology and intelligence. Now, without NATO, much of that would stay in place, as most NATO nations would still look to be friendly and cooperate with the American military, thus leading everyone to adhere to pseudo-American standards of operating during war.
That said, as a political entity serving to counter the Warsaw Pact, yeah, its old. Crimea is an interesting case for NATO and its relevance, but ultimately the result would have been the same and will likely be the same in future events regardless of NATO's existence.
Besides, if NATO stopped tomorrow, it'd only be excuse for our government to drop the charade of even pretending to care about our military. At least the pay is good, because our funding and acquisitions have never been worse. Dissolving NATO would likely worsen that for Canuckistan in particular.
From a Canadian geo-political perspective, I think Canada could easily get by without NATO. Given that you have a superpower as your neighbour, any attack against Canada would be deemed as an attack on the USA given your close proximity.
But who would attack Canada anyway? You guys have never lost a war. The rest of the world knows better than to annoy Canada
I think the Big 3 in Europe: Britain, France, Germany, need to come to a new arrangement for defence and security, and let the USA focus on the Pacific.
But, didn't you guys just decide you didn't want to play with the rest of Europe anymore?
I don't mind trading and cooperating with Europe on security issues, that was never the problem - it was the other stuff that bugged me.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I'm pretty supportive of NATO. I think it helps keep a lot of the smaller countries in Europe from being bullied. It doesn't really have any really negatives, and allows for a much more streamlined co-operative operations between countries.
Not any negatives? Except for forming an existential threat for the Russian Federation and thus forcing Russia to war? NATO membership only endangers small countries. Normally, Russia wouldn't pay any attention to countries like Estonia or Latvia. There is nothing there that is of any real interest to the Russian state. But now that they are part of NATO, they have become a huge threat (compare it to the Cuban missile crisis and the US' response to that). A threat that must be removed. Without NATO, those small countries would go back to being militarily insignificant, Russia will no longer be threatened and the whole continent will go back to being stable. Without the Warsaw Pact keeping it in balance, NATO is a huge liability to peace and stability in Europe. That is quite a bit negative, is it not?
Co'tor Shas wrote: I'm pretty supportive of NATO. I think it helps keep a lot of the smaller countries in Europe from being bullied. It doesn't really have any really negatives, and allows for a much more streamlined co-operative operations between countries.
Not any negatives? Except for forming an existential threat for the Russian Federation and thus forcing Russia to war? NATO membership only endangers small countries. Normally, Russia wouldn't pay any attention to countries like Estonia or Latvia. There is nothing there that is of any real interest to the Russian state. But now that they are part of NATO, they have become a huge threat (compare it to the Cuban missile crisis and the US' response to that). A threat that must be removed. Without NATO, those small countries would go back to being militarily insignificant, Russia will no longer be threatened and the whole continent will go back to being stable. Without the Warsaw Pact keeping it in balance, NATO is a huge liability to peace and stability in Europe. That is quite a bit negative, is it not?
Russia payed a lot of attention to those small countries for the majority of the 20th century.
Nobody forced those countries to join NATO. If they joined it was because they wanted to, probably to afford them some form of protection against Russia.
The continent, apart from Ukraine, is stable. If it becomes unstable in a military nature then it will be because of Russian aggression, not NATO.
In my view NATO is not super relevant for keeping Russia in check, that is a side benefit. I think it is more important in keeping European nations from turning on each other. I mean, let's go to the history books to see how well European nations have managed to get along with each other pre-NATO.
Iron_Captain wrote: Russia may be an autocracy, but I can assure you it is in fact a pleasant one. Pleasant to live in, that is (unless, you have no job, than it seriously sucks).
Unless you're LGBT, then you might get beaten up in the street and discrimination against you is legal.
A privately-owned Russian television channel reran a documentary from 2012 which claimed the Titanic was sunk partly due to a conspiracy by Jews.
REN-TV aired the anti-Semitic documentary last month, according to the Coordination Forum for Countering anti-Semitism.
The documentary suggested a “group of 300” Jews, freemasons and “illluminati” had sunk the ship in 1912 to provoke an international crisis and install themselves as leaders of a world government, a central theme of anti-Semitism conspiracy theories.
The 2012 version of the documentary used the past tense, suggesting that the attempt was in the past and ultimately unsuccessful. However, REN-TV’s airing of the documentary was edited to use the present tense, as well as to link the conspiracy to various more recent events, including the Chernobyl disaster, 9/11, and the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The Federation of Jewish Communities in Russia has already expressed concern about what the rise of such ideas in Russia could mean for the Jewish community. Separately, Federation on Monday urged Russia’s new education minister Olga Vasilyeva to clarify her attitude to the era of terror under Joseph Stalin, following statements attributed to her suggesting that she had praised the efficiency of state organizations under the Soviet dictator, Interfax reported.
Wow... A moderator attempting to derail a thread by continueing to post off-topic? What has this forum come to?
However, it is the complete lack of common sense and logic in the preceding comments that is more shocking. So, just because Russia also has immigration issues and conspiracy nutjobs it suddenly became a bad place to live if you are not Slavic? That is so ignorant I don't even know where to begin countering it. You wouldn't say that the US is a bad place to live for everyone who is not of white Anglo-Saxon descent, even though the US has these same issues. Seriously, people believe and say the most crazy things about Russia... It is goddamn frustrating.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I'm pretty supportive of NATO. I think it helps keep a lot of the smaller countries in Europe from being bullied. It doesn't really have any really negatives, and allows for a much more streamlined co-operative operations between countries.
Not any negatives? Except for forming an existential threat for the Russian Federation and thus forcing Russia to war? NATO membership only endangers small countries. Normally, Russia wouldn't pay any attention to countries like Estonia or Latvia. There is nothing there that is of any real interest to the Russian state. But now that they are part of NATO, they have become a huge threat (compare it to the Cuban missile crisis and the US' response to that). A threat that must be removed. Without NATO, those small countries would go back to being militarily insignificant, Russia will no longer be threatened and the whole continent will go back to being stable. Without the Warsaw Pact keeping it in balance, NATO is a huge liability to peace and stability in Europe. That is quite a bit negative, is it not?
Lets be fair, the idea that the absence of NATO will suddenly stabilize the continent and pacify all of Russia's fears is just as farcical as the idea that Russia wants to invade and take over all of Europe. Russia was in many ways treated poorly and unfairly after the fall of the Soviet Union. There have been many issues that the US, NATO, and the EU could have handled *far* better and made mistakes that were stupid and counterproductive. I don't think anyone will deny that, and some blowback from Russia on those counts is justified. At the same time however, Russia has gone somewhat overboard on keeping itself the "outsider", and that has ramifications as well. With respect to NATO, there is a factor of stabilization within much of Europe that NATO does provide (as evidenced by the fact that European armies are smaller than at any point since before Napoleon and were continuing to shrink until 2014). There are just as historically valid fears for the Latvian, Estonian and Lithuanian governments about Russia as Russia has about NATO, maybe more (having large Russian speaking minorities and having been invaded, occupied, and annexed more than once within living memory) and a Crimean-style operation, sans NATO support, could easily see them overrun and conquered almost as easily, whether Russia has such intentions or not that threat is real and nobody seems to be able to read Putin's game plan. These nations went out of their way to join NATO, NATO didn't connive and scheme to force them in. Without NATO, these nations would still conceivably be militarily significant, occupying the northern flank and coastal range of any potential conflict between Russia and anyone else in Europe, including the western and northern borders of the Kaliningrad enclave (and if they were to be annexed then Kaliningrad would no longer be an enclave).
Russia wants to go off and do Russia's thing by Russia's own self or at the very least as the clear big boss of anything Russia is engaged in. When the prospects of bringing Russia into NATO came up, Russia flatly turned down the idea because Russia wouldn't be the head honcho. That's fine, and in some ways understandable, but when Russia insists on going it alone for everything, under what is clearly an autocratic government that has shown itself willing and able to violate neighbors borders militarily, the onus then falls on Russia for feeling isolated and threatened.
Likewise, the Warsaw Pact was of questionable value in counterbalancing NATO, with most of the value being in buffer space for the Soviet Union, as many member states weren't exactly reliable and had to be militarily invaded to prevent withdrawal (Hugary, Czechoslovakia) and others simply were never going to be militarily relevant in terms of combat forces and logistics (though admittedly the same can be said of smaller NATO members as well these days).
Co'tor Shas wrote: I'm pretty supportive of NATO. I think it helps keep a lot of the smaller countries in Europe from being bullied. It doesn't really have any really negatives, and allows for a much more streamlined co-operative operations between countries.
Not any negatives? Except for forming an existential threat for the Russian Federation and thus forcing Russia to war? NATO membership only endangers small countries. Normally, Russia wouldn't pay any attention to countries like Estonia or Latvia. There is nothing there that is of any real interest to the Russian state. But now that they are part of NATO, they have become a huge threat (compare it to the Cuban missile crisis and the US' response to that). A threat that must be removed. Without NATO, those small countries would go back to being militarily insignificant, Russia will no longer be threatened and the whole continent will go back to being stable. Without the Warsaw Pact keeping it in balance, NATO is a huge liability to peace and stability in Europe. That is quite a bit negative, is it not?
Russia payed a lot of attention to those small countries for the majority of the 20th century.
Nobody forced those countries to join NATO. If they joined it was because they wanted to, probably to afford them some form of protection against Russia.
The continent, apart from Ukraine, is stable. If it becomes unstable in a military nature then it will be because of Russian aggression, not NATO.
That was because of communism. The Soviets felt the need to bring communism to as many places as possible (using force if needed) in order to quicken the coming of the World Revolution. That is why the Soviets invaded surrounding nations during the 20th century. Communism is gone however, and the Russian Federation is not the Soviet Union.
The continent is far from stable. Western Europe may be stable, but eastern Europe is far from it. If war breaks out, it will be because of NATO agression, and the Russian need to defend itself from said NATO agression. NATO is unable to protect small countries such as the Baltic states, it only serves to make them the primary target for a preemptive strike by Russia. Having NATO on its border is too great of threat to ignore, and I assure you it won't be ignored. Unless NATO gets dissolved, more war in Europe within a few decades is inevitable. The question is not "will there be war?" but rather "how destructive will the war be?". The best-case scenario would be another low-intensity conflict like in Ukraine. Worst case... I probably do not need to elaborate on.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I'm pretty supportive of NATO. I think it helps keep a lot of the smaller countries in Europe from being bullied. It doesn't really have any really negatives, and allows for a much more streamlined co-operative operations between countries.
Not any negatives? Except for forming an existential threat for the Russian Federation and thus forcing Russia to war? NATO membership only endangers small countries. Normally, Russia wouldn't pay any attention to countries like Estonia or Latvia. There is nothing there that is of any real interest to the Russian state. But now that they are part of NATO, they have become a huge threat (compare it to the Cuban missile crisis and the US' response to that). A threat that must be removed. Without NATO, those small countries would go back to being militarily insignificant, Russia will no longer be threatened and the whole continent will go back to being stable. Without the Warsaw Pact keeping it in balance, NATO is a huge liability to peace and stability in Europe. That is quite a bit negative, is it not?
Lets be fair, the idea that the absence of NATO will suddenly stabilize the continent and pacify all of Russia's fears is just as farcical as the idea that Russia wants to invade and take over all of Europe. Russia was in many ways treated poorly and unfairly after the fall of the Soviet Union. There have been many issues that the US, NATO, and the EU could have handled *far* better and made mistakes that were stupid and counterproductive. I don't think anyone will deny that, and some blowback from Russia on those counts is justified. At the same time however, Russia has gone somewhat overboard on keeping itself the "outsider", and that has ramifications as well. With respect to NATO, there is a factor of stabilization within much of Europe that NATO does provide (as evidenced by the fact that European armies are smaller than at any point since before Napoleon and were continuing to shrink until 2014). There are just as historically valid fears for the Latvian, Estonian and Lithuanian governments about Russia as Russia has about NATO, maybe more (having large Russian speaking minorities and having been invaded, occupied, and annexed more than once within living memory) and a Crimean-style operation, sans NATO support, could easily see them overrun and conquered almost as easily, whether Russia has such intentions or not that threat is real and nobody seems to be able to read Putin's game plan. These nations went out of their way to join NATO, NATO didn't connive and scheme to force them in. Without NATO, these nations would still conceivably be militarily significant, occupying the northern flank and coastal range of any potential conflict between Russia and anyone else in Europe, including the western and northern borders of the Kaliningrad enclave (and if they were to be annexed then Kaliningrad would no longer be an enclave).
Russia wants to go off and do Russia's thing by Russia's own self or at the very least as the clear big boss of anything Russia is engaged in. When the prospects of bringing Russia into NATO came up, Russia flatly turned down the idea because Russia wouldn't be the head honcho. That's fine, and in some ways understandable, but when Russia insists on going it alone for everything, under what is clearly an autocratic government that has shown itself willing and able to violate neighbors borders militarily, the onus then falls on Russia for feeling isolated and threatened.
Likewise, the Warsaw Pact was of questionable value in counterbalancing NATO, with most of the value being in buffer space for the Soviet Union, as many member states weren't exactly reliable and had to be militarily invaded to prevent withdrawal (Hugary, Czechoslovakia) and others simply were never going to be militarily relevant in terms of combat forces and logistics (though admittedly the same can be said of smaller NATO members as well these days).
Aye, I am not saying that the position of NATO or that of some of its member states is unjustified. I know that some eastern European nations are paranoid about a Russian invasion as a result of bad past experiences, just as Russia is paranoid about a Western invasion because of bad past experiences. The fears of the one aren't any more justified than the fears of the other. Russia has done its fair share of attempting to keep itself isolated, but likewise the West has also always attempted to isolate Russia. Whenever the Soviets (or later, the Russians), floated the idea of Russia joining NATO, it was shot down by the US. But ultimately, what is justified, who is at fault for what and who is right is not at all relevant, for it won't change anything in Russia's perception of being threatened, and the danger that a threatened Russia poses.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I'm confused at what this "NATO agression" is. Not letting Putin invade countries to boost his poll numbers?
If you can't think of anything other than that, it is not even worth my time trying to explain. I am totally fed up with these conspiracy theories about Putin. For now let's just say that in reality, Putin is far from the embodiment of evil you seem to think he is.
But ultimately, what is justified, who is at fault for what and who is right is not at all relevant, for it won't change anything in Russia's perception of being threatened, and the danger that a threatened Russia poses.
The issue with NATO in this regard is both that the absence of a NATO does not guarantee that Russia would face any less of a potential threat (particularly if the individual nations begin large scale rearmament without the security guarantee that NATO provides) and that NATO was rapidly dismantling its conventional capabilities until Russia militarily seized sovereignly held territory from a foreign power whos borders it had sworn to respect (in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nukes). Removing NATO doesnt necessarily improve Russia's security situation, and NATO was well on its way to neutering its conventional capabilites.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I'm confused at what this "NATO agression" is. Not letting Putin invade countries to boost his poll numbers?
If you can't think of anything other than that, it is not even worth my time trying to explain. I am totally fed up with these conspiracy theories about Putin. For now let's just say that in reality, Putin is far from the embodiment of evil you seem to think he is.
At the cost of Godwin'ing the thread, Putin may not be the commonly held paragon of evil that is a 1945 Hitler, but the parallels to a 1938 Hitler are not insignificant, even if not perfect. An effectively autocratic ruler dominating a nation that feels it has been wronged, with political opposition frequently disappearing/dying/jailed, mucking about with neighbors over lost territories and ethnic populations, whilst in the midst of a massive military rearmament/modernization effort and increasingly alienting themselves from the other major world powers in the name of self sufficiency. Hell there's even similarly situated Baltic Sea enclaves
Co'tor Shas wrote: I'm pretty supportive of NATO. I think it helps keep a lot of the smaller countries in Europe from being bullied. It doesn't really have any really negatives, and allows for a much more streamlined co-operative operations between countries.
Not any negatives? Except for forming an existential threat for the Russian Federation and thus forcing Russia to war? NATO membership only endangers small countries. Normally, Russia wouldn't pay any attention to countries like Estonia or Latvia. There is nothing there that is of any real interest to the Russian state. But now that they are part of NATO, they have become a huge threat (compare it to the Cuban missile crisis and the US' response to that). A threat that must be removed. Without NATO, those small countries would go back to being militarily insignificant, Russia will no longer be threatened and the whole continent will go back to being stable. Without the Warsaw Pact keeping it in balance, NATO is a huge liability to peace and stability in Europe. That is quite a bit negative, is it not?
I can sympathise with Russia, and IMO NATO's eastward expansion risks causing trouble that's unecessary. Russia's fears about being encircled, given its history, is something I can also understand. The Ukraine situation is not helping.
But Russia has to see the other side of the argument as well. The Baltic states were treated badly by Russia not that long ago, so it's understandable they would look to NATO for protection.
Poland is another example. I probably don't have to tell you about Russian and Polish history, so again, I can sympathise with Poland's point of view.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote: In my view NATO is not super relevant for keeping Russia in check, that is a side benefit. I think it is more important in keeping European nations from turning on each other. I mean, let's go to the history books to see how well European nations have managed to get along with each other pre-NATO.
Nah, those days are past, Thank God. A jaded Western Public that is fully aware of the destructive power of modern weapons, plus recession in the West, plus democracy, makes another European war extremely unlikely.
What if NATO was disbanded... and then, the US has such a great relationship with Russia, that it incurs this picture:
Spoiler:
What does that mean for the rest of the world?
If that happens it means that Trump won, and somewhere in a dark room in Washington, the cigerette smoking man is nodding in satisfaction, as another plan succeeds
But ultimately, what is justified, who is at fault for what and who is right is not at all relevant, for it won't change anything in Russia's perception of being threatened, and the danger that a threatened Russia poses.
The issue with NATO in this regard is both that the absence of a NATO does not guarantee that Russia would face any less of a potential threat (particularly if the individual nations begin large scale rearmament without the security guarantee that NATO provides) and that NATO was rapidly dismantling its conventional capabilities until Russia militarily seized sovereignly held territory from a foreign power whos borders it had sworn to respect (in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nukes). Removing NATO doesnt necessarily improve Russia's security situation, and NATO was well on its way to neutering its conventional capabilites.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I'm confused at what this "NATO agression" is. Not letting Putin invade countries to boost his poll numbers?
If you can't think of anything other than that, it is not even worth my time trying to explain. I am totally fed up with these conspiracy theories about Putin. For now let's just say that in reality, Putin is far from the embodiment of evil you seem to think he is.
At the cost of Godwin'ing the thread, Putin may not be the commonly held paragon of evil that is a 1945 Hitler, but the parallels to a 1938 Hitler are not insignificant, even if not perfect. An effectively autocratic ruler dominating a nation that feels it has been wronged, with political opposition frequently disappearing/dying/jailed, mucking about with neighbors over lost territories and ethnic populations, whilst in the midst of a massive military rearmament/modernization effort and increasingly alienting themselves from the other major world powers in the name of self sufficiency. Hell there's even similarly situated Baltic Sea enclaves
Putting being an autocrat doesn't always mean there will be war. After all, the USA and the UK has close ties with Saudia Arabia, and they're a pretty bad regime to say the least. Realpolitik is needed.
We should never roll over for Russia, but IMO, the West's relationship with Russia these past years could have been better, and we're getting ourselves into troublesome situations that are not necessary, and could have been better handled.
We, the west, need to up our game when it comes to geo-politics.
Besides, nowadays NATO is mostly just the US. Most European countries in it are barely contributing anything anymore.
You need to stop getting your nato news from from RU's foreign correspondent, Donald 'I want some Russian Spies in my Cabinet' Trump. The fact is that many nations, particularly the newer members, are hitting their Nato expenditures target numbers,.
Besides, nowadays NATO is mostly just the US. Most European countries in it are barely contributing anything anymore.
You need to stop getting your nato news from from RU's foreign correspondent, Donald 'I want some Russian Spies in my Cabinet' Trump. The fact is that many nations, particularly the newer members, are hitting their Nato expenditures target numbers,.
If 5 of 28 means most, then I guess you're right.
Where I'm from though, 23 of 28 is most, and that is the number NOT meeting their target expenditure numbers.
Germany, as it stands, is not hitting those target numbers, as they are only spending 1.2% of GDP on their military, as opposed to the agreed 2% target, but they have recently announced measure to buy new equipment or something, so that may change...
Besides, nowadays NATO is mostly just the US. Most European countries in it are barely contributing anything anymore.
You need to stop getting your nato news from from RU's foreign correspondent, Donald 'I want some Russian Spies in my Cabinet' Trump. The fact is that many nations, particularly the newer members, are hitting their Nato expenditures target numbers,.
If 5 of 28 means most, then I guess you're right.
Where I'm from though, 23 of 28 is most, and that is the number NOT meeting their target expenditure numbers.
As I've said before, you can't expect the Likes of Luxembourg and Estonia to compete with the USA's 600 billion a year defence budget, but they do contribute in other ways.
Countries like Norway, for example, specialize in Arctic warfare, and I'm sure the Belgians are good at making guns and bullets.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Germany, as it stands, is not hitting those target numbers, as they are only spending 1.2% of GDP on their military, as opposed to the agreed 2% target, but they have recently announced measure to buy new equipment or something, so that may change...
Besides, nowadays NATO is mostly just the US. Most European countries in it are barely contributing anything anymore.
You need to stop getting your nato news from from RU's foreign correspondent, Donald 'I want some Russian Spies in my Cabinet' Trump. The fact is that many nations, particularly the newer members, are hitting their Nato expenditures target numbers,.
If 5 of 28 means most, then I guess you're right.
Where I'm from though, 23 of 28 is most, and that is the number NOT meeting their target expenditure numbers.
As I've said before, you can't expect the Likes of Luxembourg and Estonia to compete with the USA's 600 billion a year defence budget, but they do contribute in other ways.
Countries like Norway, for example, specialize in Arctic warfare, and I'm sure the Belgians are good at making guns and bullets.
Yeah, well no one is asking them to. 2% is 2% no matter what your GDP is.
djones520 wrote: Yeah, well no one is asking them to. 2% is 2% no matter what your GDP is.
And that's the bad side of NATO. You are forced to spend 2% with zero quarantees of getting anything actually back ever. It's worst insurance in the history of insurances. Not only you have to pay for it but even if you then NEED that insurance you aren't even quaranteed to GET what you signed for in the first place.
Dammit, poll question is worded completely the opposite to the headline question - only saw that after I'd hit "yes"
I wonder if any others made the same mistake.
NATO is not outdated or unneeded - while it was born out of the Cold War, it is not a relic and it continues to serve a useful purpose by keeping a network of working military alliances in place.
Edit:
Actually, reading the comments, it seems like a lot of people got caught out by the poll question being opposite of the headline question. Perhaps it might be worth changing the headline so that it matches the question asked in the poll?
djones520 wrote: Yeah, well no one is asking them to. 2% is 2% no matter what your GDP is.
And that's the bad side of NATO. You are forced to spend 2% with zero quarantees of getting anything actually back ever. It's worst insurance in the history of insurances. Not only you have to pay for it but even if you then NEED that insurance you aren't even quaranteed to GET what you signed for in the first place.
The nations aren't forced to do anything. As has been pointed out repeatedly, the vast majority aren't even putting out that 2%.
tneva82 wrote: Which means they are breaking deals right? How long that will continue then.
But then again maybe that's fair. Since it offers no protection in case attacked would be unfair to hold to keep to the terms of the sign deal either.
Offers no protection? The whole point behind it is that if one is attacked, the other 27 come to the defense of that nation.
But just to make sure I'm getting you're point here, you are saying that having a requirement to spend money of your nations defense, means that it's pointless, because there is no guarantee of defense. Right? Strengthening your defense doesn't mean you will have a means of defense.
djones520 wrote: Yeah, well no one is asking them to. 2% is 2% no matter what your GDP is.
And that's the bad side of NATO. You are forced to spend 2% with zero quarantees of getting anything actually back ever. It's worst insurance in the history of insurances. Not only you have to pay for it but even if you then NEED that insurance you aren't even quaranteed to GET what you signed for in the first place.
Yeah, but you're forgetting that old saying about war being good for business.
All that defence spending creates jobs and employment opportunities, advances research and Development, and pays for itself.
My country, Britain, makes tons of money from making and selling guns and other military stuff to overseas markets.
Again, returning to the American example, 600 billion dollars a year is one hell of a sum of money,
but, it supports almost a 1 million + jobs, and the side benefits from military R and D, has given us things like microwaves and the internet.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Maddermax wrote: Dammit, poll question is worded completely the opposite to the headline question - only saw that after I'd hit "yes"
I wonder if any others made the same mistake.
NATO is not outdated or unneeded - while it was born out of the Cold War, it is not a relic and it continues to serve a useful purpose by keeping a network of working military alliances in place.
Edit:
Actually, reading the comments, it seems like a lot of people got caught out by the poll question being opposite of the headline question. Perhaps it might be worth changing the headline so that it matches the question asked in the poll?
It's interesting that both Australian commentators have been caught out by this question. Now, I don't want to draw any conclusions about the Australian education system, but I'm beginning to think Crocodile Dundee was a documentary
djones520 wrote: Yeah, well no one is asking them to. 2% is 2% no matter what your GDP is.
And that's the bad side of NATO. You are forced to spend 2% with zero quarantees of getting anything actually back ever. It's worst insurance in the history of insurances. Not only you have to pay for it but even if you then NEED that insurance you aren't even quaranteed to GET what you signed for in the first place.
Yeah, but you're forgetting that old saying about war being good for business.
All that defence spending creates jobs and employment opportunities, advances research and Development, and pays for itself.
My country, Britain, makes tons of money from making and selling guns and other military stuff to overseas markets.
Again, returning to the American example, 600 billion dollars a year is one hell of a sum of money,
but, it supports almost a 1 million + jobs, and the side benefits from military R and D, has given us things like microwaves and the internet.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Maddermax wrote: Dammit, poll question is worded completely the opposite to the headline question - only saw that after I'd hit "yes"
I wonder if any others made the same mistake.
NATO is not outdated or unneeded - while it was born out of the Cold War, it is not a relic and it continues to serve a useful purpose by keeping a network of working military alliances in place.
Edit:
Actually, reading the comments, it seems like a lot of people got caught out by the poll question being opposite of the headline question. Perhaps it might be worth changing the headline so that it matches the question asked in the poll?
It's interesting that both Australian commentators have been caught out by this question. Now, I don't want to draw any conclusions about the Australian education system, but I'm beginning to think Crocodile Dundee was a documentary
I think the total is roughly 7.5 million jobs exist because of the DoD's budget, can't back that source up, just dredging up the memory banks.
djones520 wrote: Yeah, well no one is asking them to. 2% is 2% no matter what your GDP is.
And that's the bad side of NATO. You are forced to spend 2% with zero quarantees of getting anything actually back ever. It's worst insurance in the history of insurances. Not only you have to pay for it but even if you then NEED that insurance you aren't even quaranteed to GET what you signed for in the first place.
You understand that the 2% is for the nation's own military, correct? It isn't 2% going to NATO, its 2% spent within that nation's borders for its own military force. In that they are in fact getting something back. A well funded military. Which, you know, is the default insurance policy for any nation ever.
NATO only helps that by having other well equipped and well funded militaries cooperating and backing one another.
NATO only helps that by having other well equipped and well funded militaries cooperating and backing one another.
2% of the GDP might not seem like much to some, but it also depends on how taxation works in those countries too.
I'm not debating that, there's a reason most NATO countries don't currently meet that standard. It is expensive, and most countries have a population that would rather see the extra few dollars on their pay than increase military spending. Such is the political game.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Yeah, but you're forgetting that old saying about war being good for business.
All that defence spending creates jobs and employment opportunities, advances research and Development, and pays for itself.
This doesn't really work. For starters, the argument for military spending giving an economic boost applies equally to any kind of government spending. You'd get the same impact in jobs and return tax revenues if you were spendng the money on highways, and at the end of that you'd have a better highway than you had before. Spending the same money on the military nets you no greater benefit in jobs and taxes, and the tanks don't help other economic activity.
The second issue, identified by the US in the 1960s, is that modern warfare is fought with mass destruction over very short time frames. They studied the incredible carnage of the mid-east wars of that era, where whole divisions of hardware and whole wings of aircraft were destroyed in days, and realised that this wasn't WWII any more, you couldn't start from scratch and leverage a production advantage to eventually win a war. This shifted US strategy to instead making sure they had a a dominant standing army.
This means that in the event of a breakout in fighting, it's going to be fought by the army you've got. Sure that will involve additional costs in more extensively using the platforms that you have, as the Iraq war showed with its trillion dollar price tag, but it isn't going to be like WWII where you actually see spending on a scale that it massively shifts GDP.
It's interesting that both Australian commentators have been caught out by this question. Now, I don't want to draw any conclusions about the Australian education system, but I'm beginning to think Crocodile Dundee was a documentary
We just caught out because we're used to living in a utopia where we we love all our politicians, all our kids get above average test scores, and things like thread titles being different from poll questions would never happen.
Blacksails wrote: I'm not debating that, there's a reason most NATO countries don't currently meet that standard. It is expensive, and most countries have a population that would rather see the extra few dollars on their pay than increase military spending. Such is the political game.
There is a reason, but the one you provided doesn't tell the whole story.
The main reason is that they simply don't need to. France doesn't need to spend money to have military logistics sufficient to make it the 2000 miles to Mali, because when they want to go, they just use our tankers. The combined aerial might of Europe doesn't need to spend money on ordnance, because when they run out within a shockingly short amount of time, as in Libya, we just give them more. We're keeping British, French, and Spanish aviation alive by training their pilots, since they don't have enough active carriers to do it themselves. Britain's decided it can make do with a Royal Air Force that's only roughly the strength of two of our carrier air wings because the reality is that if they're bombing someone, so are we, and they know we're going to do the overwhelming bulk of the work.
djones520 wrote: Yeah, well no one is asking them to. 2% is 2% no matter what your GDP is.
And that's the bad side of NATO. You are forced to spend 2% with zero quarantees of getting anything actually back ever. It's worst insurance in the history of insurances. Not only you have to pay for it but even if you then NEED that insurance you aren't even quaranteed to GET what you signed for in the first place.
You understand that the 2% is for the nation's own military, correct? It isn't 2% going to NATO, its 2% spent within that nation's borders for its own military force. In that they are in fact getting something back. A well funded military. Which, you know, is the default insurance policy for any nation ever.
NATO only helps that by having other well equipped and well funded militaries cooperating and backing one another.
2% of Finland's economy to military wouldn't be that helpful. Are we seriously worried ESTONIA would assault us? Defending that doesn't require 2%). Russia attacks and it's game over even if we spend 50% which would drive Finland into bankrupt(which would cause problems elsewhere as well since western economy is based on idea countries CANNOT go into bankrupt...)
Similary arqument it provides jobs is false arqument. That money spent on military can be used to create jobs in more useful areas. Goverment spending creates jobs whether it's military or by building infrastructure that will also help non-government parties to create work or education which in turn creates more jobs as well.
tneva82 wrote: 2% of Finland's economy to military wouldn't be that helpful. Are we seriously worried ESTONIA would assault us? Defending that doesn't require 2%). Russia attacks and it's game over even if we spend 50% which would drive Finland into bankrupt(which would cause problems elsewhere as well since western economy is based on idea countries CANNOT go into bankrupt...)
Similary arqument it provides jobs is false arqument. That money spent on military can be used to create jobs in more useful areas. Goverment spending creates jobs whether it's military or by building infrastructure that will also help non-government parties to create work or education which in turn creates more jobs as well.
"We can't stop Russia therefore there's no point doing anything" is a terrible argument.
For starters the most likely use of any NATO force is in projection. It means having the capability to stop really terrible things happening in other countries. Remember the genocide on Europe's doorstep, in the Balkans? Remember how everyone was outraged when the US was reluctant to put troops on the ground? If Europe had properly developed its capabilities then it wouldn't have had to wait until the US finally decided to get involved.
Secondly, the whole point of a defensive arrangement is that you develop a capability to defend other members, and they develop a capability to defend you, and combined you have the capability to stop any threat to any one member nation. In this instance the arrangement has gotten weird because one member nation has individually developed the capability to stop any threat. But that just makes it an even better deal for the rest of the nations involved.
Blacksails wrote: I'm not debating that, there's a reason most NATO countries don't currently meet that standard. It is expensive, and most countries have a population that would rather see the extra few dollars on their pay than increase military spending. Such is the political game.
There is a reason, but the one you provided doesn't tell the whole story.
The main reason is that they simply don't need to. France doesn't need to spend money to have military logistics sufficient to make it the 2000 miles to Mali, because when they want to go, they just use our tankers. The combined aerial might of Europe doesn't need to spend money on ordnance, because when they run out within a shockingly short amount of time, as in Libya, we just give them more. We're keeping British, French, and Spanish aviation alive by training their pilots, since they don't have enough active carriers to do it themselves. Britain's decided it can make do with a Royal Air Force that's only roughly the strength of two of our carrier air wings because the reality is that if they're bombing someone, so are we, and they know we're going to do the overwhelming bulk of the work.
They don't need to spend the money because we do.
I think that's a key point - cooperation via NATO saves everyone a fortune.
LordofHats wrote: Well it saves everyone but the US a fortune, but the US doesn't seem satisfied if its not the biggest baddest player in the neighborhood
We're not.
That doesn't mean we like our allies to be severely lacking in basic capability, though.
LordofHats wrote: Well it saves everyone but the US a fortune, but the US doesn't seem satisfied if its not the biggest baddest player in the neighborhood
Not just the US though, we can share resources with Europe that means we don't need to be self sufficient (I don't think we should be as deficient as we are currently though), assuming it's properly coordinated.
Herzlos wrote: Not just the US though, we can share resources with Europe that means we don't need to be self sufficient (I don't think we should be as deficient as we are currently though), assuming it's properly coordinated.
Again, y'all ran out of bombs within a month in the air campaign against Libya, a third world nation with a deliberately weak air defense. That was a coordinated effort.
You can't crowd source expeditionary capability if nobody you're sourcing from actually has it to begin with.
2% of Finland's economy to military wouldn't be that helpful. Are we seriously worried ESTONIA would assault us? Defending that doesn't require 2%). Russia attacks and it's game over even if we spend 50% which would drive Finland into bankrupt(which would cause problems elsewhere as well since western economy is based on idea countries CANNOT go into bankrupt...)
It would be helpful to the Finnish military. Sure, you won't automatically become some world superpower, but generally speaking, spending 2% of your budget will lead to a military that is well trained and well equipped to perform the tasks your government wants and needs based on the size of the country and its military. And the idea of NATO is that if someone much bigger than you attacks you, you'd have the entire alliance fighting for you as well. But part of that deal is to fund your own military sufficiently that its not helpless.
No one is arguing Finland or any other nation should spend 50% of its budget. The agreement was 2% because it is realistically attainable. Most nations don't because either the government feels like money is better spent elsewhere for political purposes, or as Seaward pointed out, because we all know the US is going to the bulk of any international war fighting.
Similary arqument it provides jobs is false arqument. That money spent on military can be used to create jobs in more useful areas. Goverment spending creates jobs whether it's military or by building infrastructure that will also help non-government parties to create work or education which in turn creates more jobs as well.
Its not a false argument because it does provide jobs. What you're arguing is that the money could be funneled into making other jobs, which is also true. That said, many military jobs are highly technical and pay well (at least here in Canada) so it provides a great avenue for people to learn a valuable skill/trade and get paid very good money to do it. You know, providing jobs.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Yeah, but you're forgetting that old saying about war being good for business.
All that defence spending creates jobs and employment opportunities, advances research and Development, and pays for itself.
This doesn't really work. For starters, the argument for military spending giving an economic boost applies equally to any kind of government spending. You'd get the same impact in jobs and return tax revenues if you were spendng the money on highways, and at the end of that you'd have a better highway than you had before. Spending the same money on the military nets you no greater benefit in jobs and taxes, and the tanks don't help other economic activity.
The second issue, identified by the US in the 1960s, is that modern warfare is fought with mass destruction over very short time frames. They studied the incredible carnage of the mid-east wars of that era, where whole divisions of hardware and whole wings of aircraft were destroyed in days, and realised that this wasn't WWII any more, you couldn't start from scratch and leverage a production advantage to eventually win a war. This shifted US strategy to instead making sure they had a a dominant standing army.
This means that in the event of a breakout in fighting, it's going to be fought by the army you've got. Sure that will involve additional costs in more extensively using the platforms that you have, as the Iraq war showed with its trillion dollar price tag, but it isn't going to be like WWII where you actually see spending on a scale that it massively shifts GDP.
It's interesting that both Australian commentators have been caught out by this question. Now, I don't want to draw any conclusions about the Australian education system, but I'm beginning to think Crocodile Dundee was a documentary
We just caught out because we're used to living in a utopia where we we love all our politicians, all our kids get above average test scores, and things like thread titles being different from poll questions would never happen.
True, very true, but without warfare, some of mankind's greatest inventions would never have seen the light of day.
djones520 wrote: Yeah, well no one is asking them to. 2% is 2% no matter what your GDP is.
And that's the bad side of NATO. You are forced to spend 2% with zero quarantees of getting anything actually back ever. It's worst insurance in the history of insurances. Not only you have to pay for it but even if you then NEED that insurance you aren't even quaranteed to GET what you signed for in the first place.
You understand that the 2% is for the nation's own military, correct? It isn't 2% going to NATO, its 2% spent within that nation's borders for its own military force. In that they are in fact getting something back. A well funded military. Which, you know, is the default insurance policy for any nation ever.
NATO only helps that by having other well equipped and well funded militaries cooperating and backing one another.
2% of Finland's economy to military wouldn't be that helpful. Are we seriously worried ESTONIA would assault us? Defending that doesn't require 2%). Russia attacks and it's game over even if we spend 50% which would drive Finland into bankrupt(which would cause problems elsewhere as well since western economy is based on idea countries CANNOT go into bankrupt...)
Similary arqument it provides jobs is false arqument. That money spent on military can be used to create jobs in more useful areas. Goverment spending creates jobs whether it's military or by building infrastructure that will also help non-government parties to create work or education which in turn creates more jobs as well.
It's very likely that Finland would be defeated in a war with Russia, but I doubt if the average Finn would be happy just to let the Russians walk in. A heavy price would be exacted against the Russians, same as the previous two conflcits.
It's very likely that Finland would be defeated in a war with Russia, but I doubt if the average Finn would be happy just to let the Russians walk in. A heavy price would be exacted against the Russians, same as the previous two conflcits.
It's very likely that Finland would be defeated in a war with Russia, but I doubt if the average Finn would be happy just to let the Russians walk in. A heavy price would be exacted against the Russians, same as the previous two conflcits.
The bad performance in the Winter War was caused as much by Stalin's incompetence (after having virtually all of its officers killed and being force to organise itself in a higly inefficient way just because Stalin was being paranoid, you can imagine the Red Army wasn't really much of an army anymore... It was an unruly mob of conscripted peasants with guns) as by the skill and fierceness of the Finns (who had excellent officers, some of whom where former Imperial Russian officers... History really likes to be ironic, doesn't it?). Regardless, we definitely learned not to mess with them. Finland doesn't need NATO to defend itself, its reputation is enough. Putin would never dare to invade Finland, he is way too afraid Mannerheim's ghost will come get him while he sleeps.
Herzlos wrote: Not just the US though, we can share resources with Europe that means we don't need to be self sufficient (I don't think we should be as deficient as we are currently though), assuming it's properly coordinated.
Again, y'all ran out of bombs within a month in the air campaign against Libya, a third world nation with a deliberately weak air defense. That was a coordinated effort.
You can't crowd source expeditionary capability if nobody you're sourcing from actually has it to begin with.
We'd have run out of bombs within a few hours if we were going it alone, though.
It's very likely that Finland would be defeated in a war with Russia, but I doubt if the average Finn would be happy just to let the Russians walk in. A heavy price would be exacted against the Russians, same as the previous two conflcits.
Winter war we didn't get taken over because of impending Nazi invasion so Soviets had bit more pressing concerns than waste any more time and manpower on the completely irrelevant piece of lands. They settled for what they wanted to help against Nazi's and that's it.
Continuation war and again we got beaten and were saved from suffering same fate as Ukraine etc because we were NORTH of direct line between SU and German/France and there was this anti-SU campaign that started with D-day. SU wanted Europe or even more specifically German and maybe even France so were in a bit of a hurry to go there. Only fool would claim Finland is worth more than German so no surprise SU aimed for German rather than Finland! If Brits/USA wouldn't have moved in to prevent SU from simply taking Europe at their leisure Finland would have been under red flag as well.
So yeah...So far only war Finland has really won was...Independence war. Does that count as win? At least one part of Finland could technically be said to have won there...
We can't always expect Brits/USA help us especially as in WW2 that was more of accidental as we were friends with the country(Nazi german) USA/Brits on the surface were moving against(though real target was SU).
NATO helps keep the peace *between* NATO members. When everyone is coordinating and talking to each other, people don't feel hostile to each other.
It's also good for business for its members, because when you've got the US, Britain, France, Germany, Canada etc. military might all securing, say, Estonia, people aren't afraid to do business there. Like they might be in, say, Ukraine.
Celerior wrote: NATO helps keep the peace *between* NATO members. When everyone is coordinating and talking to each other, people don't feel hostile to each other.
It's also good for business for its members, because when you've got the US, Britain, France, Germany, Canada etc. military might all securing, say, Estonia, people aren't afraid to do business there. Like they might be in, say, Ukraine.
Not necessary true, as Greece and Turkey, both NATO members, came to blows over Cyprus in the 1970s.
Then during the Falklands War, Argentina was still getting help from French engineers on its aircraft and missles, despite Britain and France being NATO members!
Often, national needs and plain old greed, can trump the alliance.
I still think that NATO is desperately floundering around looking for a new purpose.
Celerior wrote: NATO helps keep the peace *between* NATO members. When everyone is coordinating and talking to each other, people don't feel hostile to each other.
But that's another reason why it's obsolete. The EU accomplishes that already, and most European states have degraded their militaries to the point where a conventional war between any of them would be...absurd comedy, for lack of a better descriptor. Nobody's a military threat to anybody else over there.
Celerior wrote: NATO helps keep the peace *between* NATO members. When everyone is coordinating and talking to each other, people don't feel hostile to each other.
But that's another reason why it's obsolete. The EU accomplishes that already, and most European states have degraded their militaries to the point where a conventional war between any of them would be...absurd comedy, for lack of a better descriptor. Nobody's a military threat to anybody else over there.
The EU is part of that but not all of it, and in case it missed notice a major NATO member just withdrew from the EU. A large part of that military drawdown is reliance on US assistance through NATO, not other members of the EU.
The EU is a big important factor in the current European tranquility, but so is NATO.
Celerior wrote: NATO helps keep the peace *between* NATO members. When everyone is coordinating and talking to each other, people don't feel hostile to each other.
But that's another reason why it's obsolete. The EU accomplishes that already, and most European states have degraded their militaries to the point where a conventional war between any of them would be...absurd comedy, for lack of a better descriptor. Nobody's a military threat to anybody else over there.
The EU is part of that but not all of it, and in case it missed notice a major NATO member just withdrew from the EU. A large part of that military drawdown is reliance on US assistance through NATO, not other members of the EU.
The EU is a big important factor in the current European tranquility, but so is NATO.
And that's cool for Europe, and explains what they get out of it, but we're not looking at it solely from a, "How does this help Europe?" standpoint.
NATO's basically a scheme to ensure its members get guaranteed military assistance from the US at this point, and by "military assistance" I of course mean "do the overwhelming majority of the military work." Trouble is, most of the members aren't paying their dues. Why exactly should we keep subsidizing Europe's deliberate abandonment of any significant conventional military power?
For the US it's an investment. The US would be dragged into any European conflict, NATO or no. NATO helps reduce the likelyhood of that, particularly between nations that slaughtered each other by the millions within living memory. Likewise, it gives the US leverage to achieve its aims and goals if necessary, and allows the US to set the tone in many instances and the dominant voice in any potential conflict.
Vaktathi wrote: For the US it's an investment. The US would be dragged into any European conflict, NATO or no.
The US managed to stay out of Europe's wars for a full century. We could have stayed out of WWII if not for Japan. Now if we make the wrong move 50mm Americans die. How the feth is that progress?
NATO helps reduce the likelyhood of that, particularly between nations that slaughtered each other by the millions within living memory.
No only between Russia and Germany. NATO countries (Greece/Turkey) have come to blows before. In light of Turkey's new ":Got Dictatorship?" spirit and cosying up to the Russians, they may do so again.
If Russian sends "freedom fighters" into the Baltics or Poland do you seriously think France, Germany or Belgium will DO ANYTHING??? Looks whats happening in Ukraine which has NATO promises of protection now but strangely Russian troops in it. NATO aint gak but a trap for the US to kill ourselves with at this point.
{quote]Likewise, it gives the US leverage to achieve its aims and goals if necessary, and allows the US to set the tone in many instances and the dominant voice in any potential conflict.
Horse gak. Germany can't even fly enough planes to meet commitments. After Iraq the UK won't side with us. That leaves...France.
And L>ibya is the last example of that. How did that joy turn out? What? Its turned into a tribalistic ISIL/Al Qaeda hellhole? Really?
Vaktathi wrote: For the US it's an investment. The US would be dragged into any European conflict, NATO or no. NATO helps reduce the likelyhood of that, particularly between nations that slaughtered each other by the millions within living memory. Likewise, it gives the US leverage to achieve its aims and goals if necessary, and allows the US to set the tone in many instances and the dominant voice in any potential conflict.
IMO, that presumes that NATO/EU countries would be incapable of defending themselves. If true, then NATO with heavy US assistance is very much needed.
However, I don't agree with it... while these countries may not be able to project force like the US, I'm sure these countries could ramp up enough assets to, at the very least, be able to defend their borders on their own.
Vaktathi wrote: For the US it's an investment. The US would be dragged into any European conflict, NATO or no. NATO helps reduce the likelyhood of that, particularly between nations that slaughtered each other by the millions within living memory. Likewise, it gives the US leverage to achieve its aims and goals if necessary, and allows the US to set the tone in many instances and the dominant voice in any potential conflict.
IMO, that presumes that NATO/EU countries would be incapable of defending themselves. If true, then NATO with heavy US assistance is very much needed.
However, I don't agree with it... while these countries may not be able to project force like the US, I'm sure these countries could ramp up enough assets to, at the very least, be able to defend their borders on their own.
I fully agree. Of course, it depends on what their borders need defending from, but virtually all European countries have forces large enough to defend themselves from any threat that could realistically arise in the near future. Really, the only possible threat that they could not defend against would be a full Russian invasion, but that is not something Europe is going to be able do defend itself against unless it goes back to Cold War levels of military spending and stationing of NATO troops on the border. And Russian invasion would be easier (and much cheaper) to defend against with non-military means. It simply isn't likely going to happen as long as Russia is left alone and does not feel hreatened.
Vaktathi wrote: For the US it's an investment. The US would be dragged into any European conflict, NATO or no.
The US managed to stay out of Europe's wars for a full century. We could have stayed out of WWII if not for Japan.
Hrm, thats a big *maybe*, we got ourselves handily into WW1 by masquerading as neutral when really we were just non-belligerent (when you're single handedly keeping one side in the war by supplying them with arms and financing while respecting their blockade of the opposing side and insisting that your citizens should be able to travel in safety even on armed and combatant flagged vessels...you're not neutral) and the opposing powers stopped buying that fiction, and the same circumstances were present in WW2. More importantly, the US is fundamentally a very different nation than the pre WW1 US, and almost certainly could not avoid getting sucked into another european conflict, NATO or no. Thank Wilson & Teddy for that.
Likewise, the century the US avoided Europes wars was an easy century to do so in, being completely unable to intervene during the one big conflict at the start of the century and later conflicts being relatively small and confined.
Now if we make the wrong move 50mm Americans die. How the feth is that progress?
depends on what you see as progress, but ultimately that potential wouldnt disappear without NATO, it would just be reduced, while risk elsewhere would rise. Nobody knows exactly how it would look.
.
No only between Russia and Germany. NATO countries (Greece/Turkey) have come to blows before. In light of Turkey's new ":Got Dictatorship?" spirit and cosying up to the Russians, they may do so again.
Turkey has always been kind of an odd duck, but we certainly havent seen military tensions between Frane and Germany or the UK and Germany or Italy and Austria or the like since NATO was founded. Now, there are a multitude of reasons for that but NATO is one of them.
If Russian sends "freedom fighters" into the Baltics or Poland do you seriously think France, Germany or Belgium will DO ANYTHING??? Looks whats happening in Ukraine which has NATO promises of protection now but strangely Russian troops in it. NATO aint gak but a trap for the US to kill ourselves with at this point.
Ukraine is not a NATO member, NATO is under no statutory obligation to come to Ukraine's defense. As for the Baltic states, there are a number of NATO forces being built and deployed specifically for that area right now.
Horse gak. Germany can't even fly enough planes to meet commitments. After Iraq the UK won't side with us. That leaves...France.
yeah, theyre not going to blindly follow us on silly excursions in the middle east with no relation to NATO security. That doesnt mean that NATO doesnt give the US some powerful sway over a huge swath of other important decisins, actions, processes, and other such things.
Vaktathi wrote: For the US it's an investment. The US would be dragged into any European conflict, NATO or no. NATO helps reduce the likelyhood of that, particularly between nations that slaughtered each other by the millions within living memory. Likewise, it gives the US leverage to achieve its aims and goals if necessary, and allows the US to set the tone in many instances and the dominant voice in any potential conflict.
IMO, that presumes that NATO/EU countries would be incapable of defending themselves. If true, then NATO with heavy US assistance is very much needed.
However, I don't agree with it... while these countries may not be able to project force like the US, I'm sure these countries could ramp up enough assets to, at the very least, be able to defend their borders on their own.
hrm, at this point one could argue many could not adequately defend their borders on their own, though one could also argue that the shield of US forces allowed them to get to that point.
I fully agree. Of course, it depends on what their borders need defending from, but virtually all European countries have forces large enough to defend themselves from any threat that could realistically arise in the near future. Really, the only possible threat that they could not defend against would be a full Russian invasion, but that is not something Europe is going to be able do defend itself against unless it goes back to Cold War levels of military spending and stationing of NATO troops on the border. And Russian invasion would be easier (and much cheaper) to defend against with non-military means. It simply isn't likely going to happen as long as Russia is left alone and does not feel hreatened.
I fully agree. Of course, it depends on what their borders need defending from, but virtually all European countries have forces large enough to defend themselves from any threat that could realistically arise in the near future. Really, the only possible threat that they could not defend against would be a full Russian invasion, but that is not something Europe is going to be able do defend itself against unless it goes back to Cold War levels of military spending and stationing of NATO troops on the border. And Russian invasion would be easier (and much cheaper) to defend against with non-military means. It simply isn't likely going to happen as long as Russia is left alone and does not feel hreatened.
So then what does Europe need larger armies for?
May I ask what Russia is so threatened by?
The same reason we would be threatened if the Warsaw Pact rolled up nations all the way to Mexico. Its why we went to the precipice of NUCLEAR WAR over Cuba.
I fully agree. Of course, it depends on what their borders need defending from, but virtually all European countries have forces large enough to defend themselves from any threat that could realistically arise in the near future. Really, the only possible threat that they could not defend against would be a full Russian invasion, but that is not something Europe is going to be able do defend itself against unless it goes back to Cold War levels of military spending and stationing of NATO troops on the border. And Russian invasion would be easier (and much cheaper) to defend against with non-military means. It simply isn't likely going to happen as long as Russia is left alone and does not feel hreatened.
So then what does Europe need larger armies for?
May I ask what Russia is so threatened by?
The same reason we would be threatened if the Warsaw Pact rolled up nations all the way to Mexico. Its why we went to the precipice of NUCLEAR WAR over Cuba.
Considering that we aren't in the middle of a cold war, I don't really think it's the same. NATO has no reason to attack Russia, and unless Russia plans on attacking any of the states that want to join, there is no reason to be afraid.
I fully agree. Of course, it depends on what their borders need defending from, but virtually all European countries have forces large enough to defend themselves from any threat that could realistically arise in the near future. Really, the only possible threat that they could not defend against would be a full Russian invasion, but that is not something Europe is going to be able do defend itself against unless it goes back to Cold War levels of military spending and stationing of NATO troops on the border. And Russian invasion would be easier (and much cheaper) to defend against with non-military means. It simply isn't likely going to happen as long as Russia is left alone and does not feel hreatened.
So then what does Europe need larger armies for?
May I ask what Russia is so threatened by?
The same reason we would be threatened if the Warsaw Pact rolled up nations all the way to Mexico. Its why we went to the precipice of NUCLEAR WAR over Cuba.
Considering that we aren't in the middle of a cold war, I don't really think it's the same. NATO has no reason to attack Russia, and unless Russia plans on attacking any of the states that want to join, there is no reason to be afraid.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: ....I think the Big 3 in Europe: Britain, France, Germany, need to come to a new arrangement for defence and security....
Like an EU combined force perhaps?
I have to ask, as a Scottish Independence advocate, a vehement Leave supporter and now a proponent for the dissolution of NATO, what is it with you and attempting to dissemble established International treaties and organisations?
I fully agree. Of course, it depends on what their borders need defending from, but virtually all European countries have forces large enough to defend themselves from any threat that could realistically arise in the near future. Really, the only possible threat that they could not defend against would be a full Russian invasion, but that is not something Europe is going to be able do defend itself against unless it goes back to Cold War levels of military spending and stationing of NATO troops on the border. And Russian invasion would be easier (and much cheaper) to defend against with non-military means. It simply isn't likely going to happen as long as Russia is left alone and does not feel hreatened.
So then what does Europe need larger armies for?
May I ask what Russia is so threatened by?
The same reason we would be threatened if the Warsaw Pact rolled up nations all the way to Mexico. Its why we went to the precipice of NUCLEAR WAR over Cuba.
Considering that we aren't in the middle of a cold war, I don't really think it's the same. NATO has no reason to attack Russia, and unless Russia plans on attacking any of the states that want to join, there is no reason to be afraid.
If we are not in the middle of a Cold War, why do we still have NATO? its the same to them. I wouldn't want to see the "peaceful" NATO expanding right up to my border when the last time an empire expanded to my border 25mm of my people died.
I fully agree. Of course, it depends on what their borders need defending from, but virtually all European countries have forces large enough to defend themselves from any threat that could realistically arise in the near future. Really, the only possible threat that they could not defend against would be a full Russian invasion, but that is not something Europe is going to be able do defend itself against unless it goes back to Cold War levels of military spending and stationing of NATO troops on the border. And Russian invasion would be easier (and much cheaper) to defend against with non-military means. It simply isn't likely going to happen as long as Russia is left alone and does not feel hreatened.
So then what does Europe need larger armies for?
May I ask what Russia is so threatened by?
The same reason we would be threatened if the Warsaw Pact rolled up nations all the way to Mexico. Its why we went to the precipice of NUCLEAR WAR over Cuba.
Considering that we aren't in the middle of a cold war, I don't really think it's the same. NATO has no reason to attack Russia, and unless Russia plans on attacking any of the states that want to join, there is no reason to be afraid.
If we are not in the middle of a Cold War, why do we still have NATO?
To keep peace between the nations and streamline combined operations when they are needed, as well as to protect the smaller nations from aggression.
its the same to them. I wouldn't want to see the "peaceful" NATO expanding right up to my border when the last time an empire expanded to my border 25mm of my people died.
NATO is not forcing those countries to join. They are asking to become members. Now the question Russia should be asking itself is why these countries want support from NATO in order to protect themselves rather than from Russia.
The obvious answer being that the last time Russia was supporting these countries with its military it was sending in the Red Army to violently crush anti-communism sentiment and propping up dictators.
The idea would be that, as a cooperative member, there is a whole lot more to be gained working together than against each other, and that logistical strain can be shared along with coordination of forces and sharing of intelligence information.
Setting aside political issues, Russia would have large practical issues integrating into NATO, as it was the primary equipment alternative to NATO with basically nothing shared with anyone and huge industrial resources devoted to making its own patternt stuff that would require some (expensive) modification or replacement.
If the US can't depend on Europe staying together and not falling to attacking each other, then we can never pivot towards the Pacific as planned. Therefore, NATO must stay.
Easy E wrote: If the US can't depend on Europe staying together and not falling to attacking each other, then we can never pivot towards the Pacific as planned. Therefore, NATO must stay.
Or Europe abandoned. Which is happening. Military spending is declining and will continue to decline. We are a declining empire. China is taking over. you'll miss us when we're gone.
Frazzled wrote: From the Russian perspective we're all just invaders waiting to invade. Considering their history thats an excellent and accurate view.
From their history, it's an understandable view. There's a difference between a rational fear that something/one is a threat, and an accurate fear that something/one is a threat.
Frazzled wrote: From the Russian perspective we're all just invaders waiting to invade. Considering their history thats an excellent and accurate view.
From their history, it's an understandable view. There's a difference between a rational fear that something/one is a threat, and an accurate fear that something/one is a threat.
Your logic cannot be challenged. You win this round jedi.
I fully agree. Of course, it depends on what their borders need defending from, but virtually all European countries have forces large enough to defend themselves from any threat that could realistically arise in the near future. Really, the only possible threat that they could not defend against would be a full Russian invasion, but that is not something Europe is going to be able do defend itself against unless it goes back to Cold War levels of military spending and stationing of NATO troops on the border. And Russian invasion would be easier (and much cheaper) to defend against with non-military means. It simply isn't likely going to happen as long as Russia is left alone and does not feel hreatened.
So then what does Europe need larger armies for?
May I ask what Russia is so threatened by?
By the US and its warmongering imperialism. The US is the enemy of Russia. The US attempts to impose its will on the entire world, either by 'soft force', subversion or open violence. Russia (as well a few other nations, such as China and Iran) refuses to bend and tries to maintain its traditional position in the world. This makes Russia an obstacle for US domination, and therefore a target.
I fully agree. Of course, it depends on what their borders need defending from, but virtually all European countries have forces large enough to defend themselves from any threat that could realistically arise in the near future. Really, the only possible threat that they could not defend against would be a full Russian invasion, but that is not something Europe is going to be able do defend itself against unless it goes back to Cold War levels of military spending and stationing of NATO troops on the border. And Russian invasion would be easier (and much cheaper) to defend against with non-military means. It simply isn't likely going to happen as long as Russia is left alone and does not feel hreatened.
So then what does Europe need larger armies for?
May I ask what Russia is so threatened by?
The same reason we would be threatened if the Warsaw Pact rolled up nations all the way to Mexico. Its why we went to the precipice of NUCLEAR WAR over Cuba.
Considering that we aren't in the middle of a cold war, I don't really think it's the same. NATO has no reason to attack Russia, and unless Russia plans on attacking any of the states that want to join, there is no reason to be afraid.
As long as NATO exists and sits on the Russian border, the Cold War is far from over.
Frazzled wrote:
Really Frazz? Comparing NATO to the Nazis?
From the Russian perspective we're all just invaders waiting to invade. Considering their history thats an excellent and accurate view.
Russia should probably ask to join NATO. Now that would be fun.
Russia did. The Soviet Union officially applied for membership when NATO was founded. The SU was rejected, so it decided to found its own (way cooler) alliance instead: The Warsaw Pact. That was the definited beginning of the Cold War (altough really, the Cold War started in 1917 already. Or even centuries before that if you take a larger view. You might even say that a Cold War has almost always existed between Russia and the West)
The idea of Soviet/Russian membership of NATO was also brought up by Gorbachev and Yeltsin, but both were turned down.
Easy E wrote:If the US can't depend on Europe staying together and not falling to attacking each other, then we can never pivot towards the Pacific as planned. Therefore, NATO must stay.
Keeping Europe together is not the responsibility of the US, and NATO has already demonstrated its ineffectiveness in preventing members from attacking each other (see the Turkey-Greece conflict). The EU is a far more efficient tool for European stability than NATO (or any US-led organisation) will ever be able to be.
As long as NATO exists and sits on the Russian border, the Cold War is far from over.
Or as long as Russia stops invading and occupying neighboring countries the same could be said. There's a big difference between sitting next to a border and invading across it.
Seaward wrote: NATO's basically a scheme to ensure its members get guaranteed military assistance from the US at this point, and by "military assistance" I of course mean "do the overwhelming majority of the military work." Trouble is, most of the members aren't paying their dues. Why exactly should we keep subsidizing Europe's deliberate abandonment of any significant conventional military power?
What quaranteed? NATO quarantees nothing. Members have need of military aid and they have ZERO quarantees US or anybody else will lift a finger.
If USA wants they can simply say couple harsh word for the attacker and have fulfilled 100% of NATO contract requirements.
It's telling even USA didn't utilize NATO deal when they had chance but instead went for another route to get same aid from same countries as they would have got by NATO...Except NATO quarantees nothing so they didn't want to push it and show how empty quarantee it is.
Vaktathi wrote: For the US it's an investment. The US would be dragged into any European conflict, NATO or no.
The US managed to stay out of Europe's wars for a full century. We could have stayed out of WWII if not for Japan. Now if we make the wrong move 50mm Americans die. How the feth is that progress?
Since US moved in against soviet union after all it seems they weren't happy about red europe so Japan or not they would have come to Europe in the end. Maybe sooner than without Japan.
If Russian sends "freedom fighters" into the Baltics or Poland do you seriously think France, Germany or Belgium will DO ANYTHING??? Looks whats happening in Ukraine which has NATO promises of protection now but strangely Russian troops in it. NATO aint gak but a trap for the US to kill ourselves with at this point.
Ukraine is not a NATO member, NATO is under no statutory obligation to come to Ukraine's defense. As for the Baltic states, there are a number of NATO forces being built and deployed specifically for that area right now.
NATO countries only obligation is aid member country in a form they deem sufficient. That can be harsh words for the invaders. Nobody has obligation to actually send any troops, equipment or anything whatsoever.
As long as NATO exists and sits on the Russian border, the Cold War is far from over.
Or as long as Russia stops invading and occupying neighboring countries the same could be said. There's a big difference between sitting next to a border and invading across it.
Tell me about it. My next deployment has a lot to do with the fact that Russian international policy is not about providing fluffy bunnies to their neighbors...
I am less concerned with ditching NATO which still has a great role in international security than ditching the UN which does nothing but meddle in things that aren't its concern. The UN started with good intentions as has turned into a BS globalist co-op joke with terrorist countries running things like the ethics and human rights commissions. It is long due past time to get out and do our own thing without them. They can stay in New York but they need to pay rent for the building.
NATO at least doesn't intervene in politics or waste slowed amounts of money on the climate change hoax which is rapidly crumbling after 20 years of fraud and abuse. NATO also provides a good foundation for training for international crisis for both the US and many countries that do not get the opportunity to do so.
Col. Dash wrote: NATO at least doesn't intervene in politics or waste slowed amounts of money on the climate change hoax which is rapidly crumbling after 20 years of fraud and abuse.
Ah, I see. You have no idea what you're talking about.
Why are the likes of Turkey and Greece in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation anyway? A joke on US geography knoweledge?
We should make the Mediterranean Treaty Organisation with, you guessed it right, all the countries on the shores of the Mediterranean.
Not really a force to be reckoned with, but we would throw the best parties and it isn't like anyone takes most of us seriously anyway.
The UN actually does a lot of stuff, it just doesnt get reported on because it's not particularly flashy (food shipments and vaccine distribution in poor countries doesnt make headlines) and the overwhelmingly vast majority of it has nothing to do with military operations. It too has major issues, but also serves as a coherent structure around which nations can argue and debate, even if irrationally, and does serve as an alternative diplomatic channel.
It's interesting that the whole climate change thing is contested pretty much only amongst US, Australian, and UK conservatives, and across the rest of the globe and political spectrum doesnt appear to be something so vociferously denied, and certainly not along the stark political lines it is in those 3 countries.
As long as NATO exists and sits on the Russian border, the Cold War is far from over.
Or as long as Russia stops invading and occupying neighboring countries the same could be said. There's a big difference between sitting next to a border and invading across it.
That is what we tried to pretend in 1940-1941, when the Axis was building up troops along the Soviet border, while pretending to be all nice and smiles. Today, it is 1941 again, with NATO replacing the Axis and the US instead of Germany.
In other words, sitting next to a border is the first step of any invasion. If NATO has no plans of invasion, then why is it attempting to increase its power everywhere around Russia and build up troops again everywhere along the Russian border? To defend from Russian agression? That is circular logic, for Russian agression is only caused by NATO 's expansion and threatening moves. Russia has no desire to invade anyone, we just want to be safe, without hostile military alliances leering across our borders.
NATO isnt attempting to increase its power, those countries all want what NATO offers, thats the difference. They key question there is why are such countries wanting to be in NATO?
Russia's seizure of Crimea was what has set off the latest issues with NATO, a seizure not in response to NATO actions, but internal Ukrainian drama.
As long as NATO exists and sits on the Russian border, the Cold War is far from over.
Or as long as Russia stops invading and occupying neighboring countries the same could be said. There's a big difference between sitting next to a border and invading across it.
That is what we tried to pretend in 1940-1941, when the Axis was building up troops along the Soviet border, while pretending to be all nice and smiles. Today, it is 1941 again, with NATO replacing the Axis and the US instead of Germany.
In other words, sitting next to a border is the first step of any invasion. If NATO has no plans of invasion, then why is it attempting to increase its power everywhere around Russia and build up troops again everywhere along the Russian border? To defend from Russian agression? That is circular logic, for Russian agression is only caused by NATO 's expansion and threatening moves. Russia has no desire to invade anyone, we just want to be safe, without hostile military alliances leering across our borders.
Oh man... oh man that was so awesome to read. The amount of Kool-Aid you've consumed to get that world view going it just amazing.
Vaktathi wrote: NATO isnt attempting to increase its power, those countries all want what NATO offers, thats the difference. They key question there is why are such countries wanting to be in NATO?
This is the crux of the entire issue. Some of Russia's neighbors clearly aren't comfortable with Russia, but how is that NATO's fault?
aldo wrote: Why are the likes of Turkey and Greece in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation anyway? A joke on US geography knoweledge?
We should make the Mediterranean Treaty Organisation with, you guessed it right, all the countries on the shores of the Mediterranean.
Not really a force to be reckoned with, but we would throw the best parties and it isn't like anyone takes most of us seriously anyway.
An organization with Libya as a member? That's a party!
Vaktathi wrote: NATO isnt attempting to increase its power, those countries all want what NATO offers, thats the difference. They key question there is why are such countries wanting to be in NATO?
This is the crux of the entire issue. Some of Russia's neighbors clearly aren't comfortable with Russia, but how is that NATO's fault?
In a way, both sides are at fault.
If there were statesmen or women on both sides, I mean proper statesmen, they would sit down and thrash out a deal.
Ukraine would be neutral, non-aligned, free to trade with whom ever it wants, and also providing a 'buffer' for Russia.
NATO would pledge no more eastward expansion and in return, Russian promises to keep the hell out of Georgia and the Baltic states.
But unfortunately, hardliners on both sides wouldn't allow this. It suits some Western interests to paint Russia as starting a new Cold War. It suits Puting to ramp up the NATO threat, and present himself as the defender of Russia, especially if his ratings are falling.
NATO has no business expanding eastwards anyway IMO, but Russia annexing the Crimea is equally as bad.
That doesn't address the issues that are making these countries apply to join NATO. There is already international law and basic decorum which means that Russia shouldn't be invading its neighbours, so how would Russia "promising" not to do that make these countries any less nervous?
Also, you think Russia militarily seizing land from another country is equally as bad as NATO accepting countries who have applied to join? That is laughable. NATO didn't send in the German army into Poland and force them to apply afterwards.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: ....NATO would pledge no more eastward expansion and in return, Russian promises to keep the hell out of Georgia and the Baltic states.
But unfortunately, hardliners on both sides wouldn't allow this. It suits some Western interests to paint Russia as starting a new Cold War. It suits Puting to ramp up the NATO threat, and present himself as the defender of Russia, especially if his ratings are falling.
NATO has no business expanding eastwards anyway IMO, but Russia annexing the Crimea is equally as bad.
Bit of a high noon stand off this one.
Eastward expansion as a NATO aim? More like at the request of Eastern states due to the aggression of Russia and it's laissez faire attitude to it's neighbours borders.
How can you equate an invasion like in Georgia and Ukraine with the requests of a Sovreign state to begin negotiations to join an alliance.
Just because you disagree with the EU and NATO, does not mean that any state that request to join them equates in the same way as Russia rolling tanks over a border.
If you have trouble understanding that, then your whole world view is as skewed as Putin's.
Also, and I think I made this point before in a previous discussion, what right do you, or anyone else have to determine that the Ukraine should just act as a "buffer state" between NATO and Russia. Surely it is down to the people of that country to decide what to do for themselves, not become a convenient space between 2 hostile forces. Would you be happy if Scotland was independent, but forced to act as a buffer zone between England and Iceland after a ferocious resumption and escalation of the Cod Wars? Not allowed to ally with either and forced by international treaty to just sit there, and do nothing but get in-between 2 intractable foes?
A Town Called Malus wrote: That doesn't address the issues that are making these countries apply to join NATO. There is already international law and basic decorum which means that Russia shouldn't be invading its neighbours, so how would Russia "promising" not to do that make these countries any less nervous?
Also, you think Russia militarily seizing land from another country is equally as bad as NATO accepting countries who have applied to join? That is laughable. NATO didn't send in the German army into Poland and force them to apply afterwards.
Obviously, there would be a carrot and stick approach to ensuring the whole situation remained peaceful.
In saying that, encircling Russia with a ring of NATO members was always going to provoke a reaction - it's geopolitics 101.
That it has been done suggests incompetence or complicity.
As I said earlier, we shouldn't roll over for Russia, but I think this whole West Vs. Russia stand off was avoidable, and completely unnecessary. It's a 'fight' we don't have to get engaged with.
There are enough issues in the world that demand our attention without getting bogged down by needless and unnecessary problems of our own making.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: ....NATO would pledge no more eastward expansion and in return, Russian promises to keep the hell out of Georgia and the Baltic states.
But unfortunately, hardliners on both sides wouldn't allow this. It suits some Western interests to paint Russia as starting a new Cold War. It suits Puting to ramp up the NATO threat, and present himself as the defender of Russia, especially if his ratings are falling.
NATO has no business expanding eastwards anyway IMO, but Russia annexing the Crimea is equally as bad.
Bit of a high noon stand off this one.
Eastward expansion as a NATO aim? More like at the request of Eastern states due to the aggression of Russia and it's laissez faire attitude to it's neighbours borders.
How can you equate an invasion like in Georgia and Ukraine with the requests of a Sovreign state to begin negotiations to join an alliance.
Just because you disagree with the EU and NATO, does not mean that any state that request to join them equates in the same way as Russia rolling tanks over a border.
If you have trouble understanding that, then your whole world view is as skewed as Putin's.
I think your world view is skewed if you have trouble understanding basic geo-politics.
When the Cold War was over, the Soviet Union was defeated, the West won. There was an understanding that NATO wouldn't expand and wouldn't rub a defeated Russia's face into the mud. Just becuase a nation applies to join NATO, doesn't mean it should be accepted. Anybody with any understanding of Russia history and culture would know that admitting the Baltic states or Georgia was always going to lead to trouble.
Take the Ukraine. What purpose would it serve to have Ukraine in NATO? For the life of me, I cannot see one...
Like I keep saying, it's getting involved in fights we don't have to fight...
Putin is doing exactly the same Boris Yeltsin did or would do, but Yeltsin was a valued ally, probably because Western companies took the piss in Russia.
Putin's regime is unpleasant, no question, but we're quite happy to deal with Saudi Arabia, eqaully as bad. So why can't the west treat Russia as a normal nation?
A Town Called Malus wrote: That doesn't address the issues that are making these countries apply to join NATO. There is already international law and basic decorum which means that Russia shouldn't be invading its neighbours, so how would Russia "promising" not to do that make these countries any less nervous?
Also, you think Russia militarily seizing land from another country is equally as bad as NATO accepting countries who have applied to join? That is laughable. NATO didn't send in the German army into Poland and force them to apply afterwards.
Obviously, there would be a carrot and stick approach to ensuring the whole situation remained peaceful.
In saying that, encircling Russia with a ring of NATO members was always going to provoke a reaction - it's geopolitics 101.
That it has been done suggests incompetence or complicity.
As I said earlier, we shouldn't roll over for Russia, but I think this whole West Vs. Russia stand off was avoidable, and completely unnecessary. It's a 'fight' we don't have to get engaged with.
There are enough issues in the world that demand our attention without getting bogged down by needless and unnecessary problems of our own making.
I think your "Realpolitik" is just wishful thinking. The west is already using carrot and stick diplomacy with the Russians, and the results are available for all to see. The only difference is that we have something that the Russians fear and respect, NATO. Without it, I genuinely believe that Putin would find an innumerable amount of reasons to reintroduce it's previous allies, and erstwhile enemies, to Russian authority.
Much as Iron_Captain denies any Russian expansionist aims, the actions of his leader speak volumes. They are not averse to trampling borders, previous agreements and even allies. The Ukraine was an integral part of the Soviet Union FFS, and they now treat them like enemies.
The issue with trade with Ukraine that played a part in kicking off this whole mess is tricky. In theory one could have allowed Ukraine to trade with both Russia and the EU equally, but the problem therein is that it then effectively allows Russia almost the same access to EU markets through Ukraine without having go through the same processes, procedures and standards that other outside trading partners would, and that has much greater negative implications for the EU than for Russia.
Relations between Ukraine and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) started in 1994.[1] Ukraine applied to join the NATO Membership Action Plan (MAP) in 2008.[2][3] Plans for NATO membership were shelved by Ukraine following the 2010 presidential election in which Viktor Yanukovych, who preferred to keep the country non-aligned, was elected President.[4][5] Amid the Euromaidan unrest, Yanukovych fled Ukraine in February 2014.[6] The interim Yatsenyuk Government which came to power, initially said, with reference to the country's non-aligned status, that it had no plans to join NATO.[7] However, following the Russian military intervention in Ukraine and parliamentary elections in October 2014, the new government made joining NATO a priority
Why are the likes of Turkey and Greece in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation anyway? A joke on US geography knoweledge?
Because the treaty began with one set of members, many of them bordering the North Atlantic or regionally located near it such that the name made since. The organization changed and expanded, the name didn't. To be fair, "NATO" does sound kind of bad ass. Who would want to change it
They are not averse to trampling borders, previous agreements and even allies. The Ukraine was an integral part of the Soviet Union FFS, and they now treat them like enemies.
The Soviet Union treated Ukraine like an enemy as well. Recognize that Ukrainians were an ethnic group that was the target of low ethnic cleansing under Stalin, and general discrimination throughout most of the USSR's life. Ukraine has historically been geopolitically valuable to Russian states. It's people have historically been a thorn in the side.
Easy E wrote:If the US can't depend on Europe staying together and not falling to attacking each other, then we can never pivot towards the Pacific as planned. Therefore, NATO must stay.
Keeping Europe together is not the responsibility of the US, and NATO has already demonstrated its ineffectiveness in preventing members from attacking each other (see the Turkey-Greece conflict). The EU is a far more efficient tool for European stability than NATO (or any US-led organisation) will ever be able to be.
Yes, a better alternative to a US led organization is a Russian led one. AMIRITE?
aldo wrote: Why are the likes of Turkey and Greece in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation anyway? A joke on US geography knoweledge?
We should make the Mediterranean Treaty Organisation with, you guessed it right, all the countries on the shores of the Mediterranean.
Not really a force to be reckoned with, but we would throw the best parties and it isn't like anyone takes most of us seriously anyway.
The deal with the Turks and Greeks was because the Black Sea and Aegean were strategically important during the Cold War. Having NATO members in those key areas was important in NATO war planning.
Vaktathi wrote: NATO isnt attempting to increase its power, those countries all want what NATO offers, thats the difference.
Georgia once wanted to be an unaligned state. Then there was an US-backed coup, et voilà! Now the country wants to be in NATO. Coincidence? I think not.
However, whether those countries wanted or not wanted to be in NATO is ultimately irrelevant. What is relevant is that NATO attempts to push ever closer to the Russian borders. The way by which their attempts are made is not important.
Vaktathi wrote: They key question there is why are such countries wanting to be in NATO?
You know the answer already. The same reason Russia doesn't want NATO anywhere near. Safety. Just like Russia does not trust NATO, those countries do not trust Russia. They want to join NATO in the false hope it gives them safety from Russia, which for some reason they think wants to invade and occupy their land.
Vaktathi wrote: Russia's seizure of Crimea was what has set off the latest issues with NATO, a seizure not in response to NATO actions, but internal Ukrainian drama.
That is a very skewed viewpoint that does not take into account the larger geopolitical picture. Russia's re-taking control of Crimea was not in response to the political turmoil in Ukraine. Turmoil is kinda the default state of Ukrainian politics after all. Russia feared NATO would be trying to turn Ukraine into a new US outpost, just like they did with Georgia. Therefore Russia acted to protect Crimea because it feared that the lease of Sevastopol would be discontinued if the new regime in Ukraine would align itself with NATO. Russia kinda is really attached to that old rusty base, you see?
The Russian action in Crimea was maybe not a direct response to a NATO action, but it certainly was motivated out of fear for NATO.
As long as NATO exists and sits on the Russian border, the Cold War is far from over.
Or as long as Russia stops invading and occupying neighboring countries the same could be said. There's a big difference between sitting next to a border and invading across it.
That is what we tried to pretend in 1940-1941, when the Axis was building up troops along the Soviet border, while pretending to be all nice and smiles. Today, it is 1941 again, with NATO replacing the Axis and the US instead of Germany.
In other words, sitting next to a border is the first step of any invasion. If NATO has no plans of invasion, then why is it attempting to increase its power everywhere around Russia and build up troops again everywhere along the Russian border? To defend from Russian agression? That is circular logic, for Russian agression is only caused by NATO 's expansion and threatening moves. Russia has no desire to invade anyone, we just want to be safe, without hostile military alliances leering across our borders.
Oh man... oh man that was so awesome to read. The amount of Kool-Aid you've consumed to get that world view going it just amazing.
They don't sell Kool-Aid in Russia, nor in the Netherlands, so I have never drunk it. And reading about it, I also don't really feel like trying. I prefer juice that has actual fruit in it.
But though the relation between the consumption of Kool-Aid has and world-views eludes me, I can make an educated guess as to the meaning of your statement. I assume that the Kool-Aid here is an American idiom for being crazy? In that case I would like to point out that dismissing other worldviews like that is extremely foolish and makes you a whole lot more crazy (and dangerous) than me. It is the kind of extremist ignorance that got us into this mess in the first place, and that will lead to WWIII if not taken care of.
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Vaktathi wrote: NATO isnt attempting to increase its power, those countries all want what NATO offers, thats the difference. They key question there is why are such countries wanting to be in NATO?
This is the crux of the entire issue. Some of Russia's neighbors clearly aren't comfortable with Russia, but how is that NATO's fault?
It is a vicious cycle. NATO makes Russia uncomfortable with its neighbours, which makes the neighbours more uncomfortable, leading them to call for greater NATO support, leading to Russia becoming more uncomfortable etc.
BigWaaagh wrote:
aldo wrote: Why are the likes of Turkey and Greece in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation anyway? A joke on US geography knoweledge?
We should make the Mediterranean Treaty Organisation with, you guessed it right, all the countries on the shores of the Mediterranean.
Not really a force to be reckoned with, but we would throw the best parties and it isn't like anyone takes most of us seriously anyway.
An organization with Libya as a member? That's a party!
aldo wrote: Why are the likes of Turkey and Greece in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation anyway? A joke on US geography knoweledge?
We should make the Mediterranean Treaty Organisation with, you guessed it right, all the countries on the shores of the Mediterranean.
Not really a force to be reckoned with, but we would throw the best parties and it isn't like anyone takes most of us seriously anyway.
An organization with Libya as a member? That's a party!
No thanks to NATO
Or, you know, Arab Spring...obviously masterminded by NATO. Did you read that in PRAVDA? I mean since Vlad has cracked down on or closed most of the journalistic voices of opposition over there, is it just paranoid propaganda blaring 24/7? Sounds like Fox over here!
I think that we still need NATO but I screwed up my vote. I was answering the question posed by the thread title rather than the one asked by the poll. Doh.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Also, you think Russia militarily seizing land from another country is equally as bad as NATO accepting countries who have applied to join? That is laughable. NATO didn't send in the German army into Poland and force them to apply afterwards.
I'd pay to see that attempt, though. Poland's one of the few I'd advocate for letting stay in NATO, because they're actually spending some money and taking their military seriously.
They are not averse to trampling borders, previous agreements and even allies. The Ukraine was an integral part of the Soviet Union FFS, and they now treat them like enemies.
The Soviet Union treated Ukraine like an enemy as well. Recognize that Ukrainians were an ethnic group that was the target of low ethnic cleansing under Stalin, and general discrimination throughout most of the USSR's life. Ukraine has historically been geopolitically valuable to Russian states. It's people have historically been a thorn in the side.
That statement shows a great lack of knowledge of basic Soviet, Russian and Ukrainian history. Let me begin the lesson by saying that before the Soviet Union, there in fact never was a real Ukrainian nation (at least, not as we know it today). The feeling of being specifially Ukrainian rather than just "Slavic Orthodox" was historically limited just to Galicia and other parts that had to fight against Polish domination. This started out from the religious divide (Catholic vs Orthodox) and this religious divide eventually started to become about language too (Polish vs Ukrainian language) and finally this divide resulted in the development of a specific national identity on the part of the Ukrainian-speaking, Orthodox people in opposition to the Catholic, Polish speaking people. Outside of the Western parts of what is now Ukraine, the Ukrainian identity remained limited only to a number of poets, romanticists and other intellectuals. In the end, it was the Soviets who in their education programs for the peasants made the effort to spread the Ukrainian national identity to all Ukrainian-language speakers as part of the creation of the Ukrainian SSR. Eventually, during Soviet times, "Ukrainian" would even lose its connection to language and instead become tied to the territory of the Ukrainian SSR (nowadays, it really is just a matter of self-identification. There are families where the parents are both ethnic Russians, but the children are Ukrainian and vice versa). Without the Soviet Union, Ukraine as we know it would never have existed and all Ukrainians would by now have likely been "russified" by the centralisation policies of the Russian Empire. Saying that Ukrainians as a people were discriminated in the USSR is complete nonsense. To say that they were the target of ethnic cleansing is utter stupidity. Much of the leadership of the USSR was Ukrainian! Ukrainian nationalism was eventually supressed by Stalin, yes. But so was Russian nationalism. In fact, Stalin and other Soviet leaders considered Russian nationalism a far greater threat to the stability of the USSR than any other nationalism. Crimean Tatars, Chechens, and others have fair reasons to claim that they were subjected to ethnic cleansing in the USSR. Ukrainians not at all, they were in fact one of the dominant nationalities in the USSR.
Also, Ukraine only started to become valueable to the Muscovite-Russian state after the conquest of the steppes and defeat of the Tatars. Before that Ukraine was just a dangerous, mostly desolate wilderness on the borders of the Russian world that would have been ignored if not for the danger posed by Tatar raids.
And just for fun (and to proof the apparent perception of Stalin as some kind of Russian nationalist wrong), an example of Stalin's attitude towards Russians and minorities (and always keep in mind that Stalin was Georgian, not Russian):
I.V. Stalin wrote:The main danger, Great-Russian chauvinism, should be kept in check by the Russians themselves, for the sake of the larger goal of building socialism. Within the minority areas new institutions should be organized giving the state a minority character everywhere, built on the use of the minority languages in government and education, and on the recruitment and promotion of leaders from the ranks of minority groups. On the central level the minorities should be represented in the Soviet of Minorities.
(from the 12th Party Congress, where Stalin mostly concerned himself with the dangers of nationalism and the resulting imperialism)
Removing Russian influence in favour of local minorities surely sounds like something a Russian nationalist government would do, no? It is probably also a good idea to mention the fact that actual Russian nationalist tend to have a burning hatred for the USSR (and modern Russia as well), which they view as discriminating against Russians in favour of minorities.
aldo wrote: Why are the likes of Turkey and Greece in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation anyway? A joke on US geography knoweledge?
We should make the Mediterranean Treaty Organisation with, you guessed it right, all the countries on the shores of the Mediterranean.
Not really a force to be reckoned with, but we would throw the best parties and it isn't like anyone takes most of us seriously anyway.
An organization with Libya as a member? That's a party!
No thanks to NATO
Or, you know, Arab Spring...obviously masterminded by NATO. Did you read that in PRAVDA? I mean since Vlad has cracked down on or closed most of the journalistic voices of opposition over there, is it just paranoid propaganda blaring 24/7? Sounds like Fox over here!
Libya became a mess only after NATO decided helping a bunch of islamists was a good idea. Before that, the government was in total control of the situation and on the verge of defeating the insurgency.
And actually, the opposition has plenty of voice in Russia, with plenty of media on the local level supporting them. Russia is currently gearing up for the elections. You really should go and see for yourself just how much of a dictatorship Russia is.The propaganda is paranoid and blaring 24/7, just like it does in the West. I am sure you will feel at home. I really recommend visiting St. Petersburg, it is one of the most beautiful cities in the world. But before you go, know that Pravda is no longer a thing and that in Russia, Vlad is short for Vladislav, not for Vladimir.
Thanks in advance for actually being interested and trying to learn something about Russia.
As long as NATO exists and sits on the Russian border, the Cold War is far from over.
Or as long as Russia stops invading and occupying neighboring countries the same could be said. There's a big difference between sitting next to a border and invading across it.
That is what we tried to pretend in 1940-1941, when the Axis was building up troops along the Soviet border, while pretending to be all nice and smiles. Today, it is 1941 again, with NATO replacing the Axis and the US instead of Germany.
In other words, sitting next to a border is the first step of any invasion. If NATO has no plans of invasion, then why is it attempting to increase its power everywhere around Russia and build up troops again everywhere along the Russian border? To defend from Russian agression? That is circular logic, for Russian agression is only caused by NATO 's expansion and threatening moves. Russia has no desire to invade anyone, we just want to be safe, without hostile military alliances leering across our borders.
Oh man... oh man that was so awesome to read. The amount of Kool-Aid you've consumed to get that world view going it just amazing.
They don't sell Kool-Aid in Russia, nor in the Netherlands, so I have never drunk it. And reading about it, I also don't really feel like trying. I prefer juice that has actual fruit in it.
But though the relation between the consumption of Kool-Aid has and world-views eludes me, I can make an educated guess as to the meaning of your statement. I assume that the Kool-Aid here is an American idiom for being crazy? In that case I would like to point out that dismissing other worldviews like that is extremely foolish and makes you a whole lot more crazy (and dangerous) than me. It is the kind of extremist ignorance that got us into this mess in the first place, and that will lead to WWIII if not taken care of.
To clarify, as your educated guess is a bit off the mark:
"Drinking the Kool-Aid", at it's most basic, means you believe in something so strongly that you do not question it, even to the point of irrationality. The source of the phrase is the Jonestown Massacre, where about 900 members of Jones's cult willingly drank cyanide-laced Kool-Aid because of their unquestioning faith in him.
Exactly. NATO disarmament on the Russian border has been the long term policy since the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Our "troop build up" in NATO countries that began just a year ago, consists of 1 Brigade Combat Team, and an Aviation task force.
A total of about 4500 troops. This did not start until after Russia militarily invaded the Ukraine, and annexed their most financially lucrative region, and has since continued to build up their military forces on the borders of NATO countries.
The Russians have put roughly 70,000 troops on the border with the Baltic NATO states, and there are another 30,000 expected to move their shortly.
So quit with your weak ass analogy, trying to paint us as Nazi Germany. We aren't the ones who've militarily annexed parts of multiple countries under false political pretenses.
Future War Cultist wrote: I think that we still need NATO but I screwed up my vote. I was answering the question posed by the thread title rather than the one asked by the poll. Doh.
Just wait, the thread's author will be along soon to make fun of the education system of where you are from. What's that? Your from the UK? Oh, well that will be uncomfortable.
That statement shows a great lack of knowledge of basic Soviet, Russian and Ukrainian history.
A "great lack of knowledge", and not ignoring pieces of history that are politically inconvenient aren't the same thing (especially in a purposely general statement). We've been over this before. The existence of a Ukrainian state is irrelevant to the matter of being able to talk about Ukraine as a region, and Ukrainians as a people. We can plug in all kinds of names for either of those over time with all kinds of caveats, but as general as this discussion is not actually being about the history of the region but about a specific regional conception and group of people, a general statement is sufficient.
(and to proof the apparent perception of Stalin as some kind of Russian nationalist wrong)
I didn't say anything about nationalism. For Stalin it was as simple as Ukrainian nationalism was an present factor in the region, and for a guy absolutely obsessed with control, it wasn't something he had much tolerance for, and especially within the Soviet ideal, it was something that went against the grain so to speak for this very reason;
Removing Russian influence in favour of local minorities surely sounds like something a Russian nationalist government would do, no?
It's something they might try to do. Success is another measure. That's part of why "Soviet" became a term, but it didn't change that Soviet culture was largely dominated by Russians, and largely developed from Russian culture. It's called ethnocentrism. It doesn't require one to think one group is better or worse than another, merely a cognitive bias in viewing a certain culture and society is better (it's not even necessarily purposeful, it can result as a simple by product of basic social factors). The US actually had a similar incident in its own past; Assimilationism was a late 19th early 20th century movement aimed at advancing and improving the lives of freedmen and native Americans, because at least initially assimilationist like Richard Henry Pratt rejected biological race as a concept. Didn't stop them from establishing profoundly racist views and policies because even in rejecting the notion of biological racism, they couldn't escape the sense that white Europeans were still superior culturally, religiously, and socially so obviously black and red people should be more like white people and their lives would get better over night (didn't pan out).
It is probably also a good idea to mention the fact that actual Russian nationalist tend to have a burning hatred for the USSR (and modern Russia as well), which they view as discriminating against Russians in favour of minorities.
I think that's a pretty common trend in nationalism in general for most countries Hate the current state because it doesn't give you everything you want, roughly blame <insert ethnic/racial group> as the cause, and proceed to rage
djones520 wrote: Exactly. NATO disarmament on the Russian border has been the long term policy since the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Our "troop build up" in NATO countries that began just a year ago, consists of 1 Brigade Combat Team, and an Aviation task force.
A total of about 4500 troops. This did not start until after Russia militarily invaded the Ukraine, and annexed their most financially lucrative region, and has since continued to build up their military forces on the borders of NATO countries.
The Russians have put roughly 70,000 troops on the border with the Baltic NATO states, and there are another 30,000 expected to move their shortly.
So quit with your weak ass analogy, trying to paint us as Nazi Germany. We aren't the ones who've militarily annexed parts of multiple countries under false political pretenses.
And that is the crux of the issue. For all the talk of a NATO "threat," it's not NATO who is invading other countries.
Really, military power and oil (and mayonnaise!) are all Russia really has left, and with the move away from oil dependency and dirt cheap prices from the middle east, they are increasingly losing the power of the latter.
Future War Cultist wrote: I think that we still need NATO but I screwed up my vote. I was answering the question posed by the thread title rather than the one asked by the poll. Doh.
Just wait, the thread's author will be along soon to make fun of the education system of where you are from. What's that? Your from the UK? Oh, well that will be uncomfortable.
Right on cue, but there's something you're overlooking
For those who don't know, there is no single education system in the UK, as each part of the UK (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales) has its own education system, so if he's from a different part of the UK from me, I can still laugh at his education system.
A Town Called Malus wrote: That doesn't address the issues that are making these countries apply to join NATO. There is already international law and basic decorum which means that Russia shouldn't be invading its neighbours, so how would Russia "promising" not to do that make these countries any less nervous?
Also, you think Russia militarily seizing land from another country is equally as bad as NATO accepting countries who have applied to join? That is laughable. NATO didn't send in the German army into Poland and force them to apply afterwards.
Obviously, there would be a carrot and stick approach to ensuring the whole situation remained peaceful.
In saying that, encircling Russia with a ring of NATO members was always going to provoke a reaction - it's geopolitics 101.
That it has been done suggests incompetence or complicity.
As I said earlier, we shouldn't roll over for Russia, but I think this whole West Vs. Russia stand off was avoidable, and completely unnecessary. It's a 'fight' we don't have to get engaged with.
There are enough issues in the world that demand our attention without getting bogged down by needless and unnecessary problems of our own making.
I think your "Realpolitik" is just wishful thinking. The west is already using carrot and stick diplomacy with the Russians, and the results are available for all to see. The only difference is that we have something that the Russians fear and respect, NATO. Without it, I genuinely believe that Putin would find an innumerable amount of reasons to reintroduce it's previous allies, and erstwhile enemies, to Russian authority.
Much as Iron_Captain denies any Russian expansionist aims, the actions of his leader speak volumes. They are not averse to trampling borders, previous agreements and even allies. The Ukraine was an integral part of the Soviet Union FFS, and they now treat them like enemies.
It's double standards, though. Britain and the USA invade Iraq, well that's 'saving democracy.'
Russia gets involved in the Ukraine, that's a new 'Cold War.'
Not having a go at you, but the double standards on display is nauseating at times.
US citizens putting in NATO propaganda, Russians putting in Russia propaganda. And surprised people are...Looks around...Finds nobody...Okay business as usual.
It's not like all of NATO went into Iraq completely unified; France and a bunch of other countries refused, remember? Is it still a NATO operation when a bunch of members distance themselves from the entire thing?
One could argue that NATO has been a success, and should continue to exist as long as current members and those who want to join feel it is still relevant. The original premise of NATO was 'To keep America in, Germany down, and Russia out'. Europe was concerned about it's violent past (can't blame Germany for all that though), Russian expansionism, and American investment in economic and military security. Just on those alone, NATO, as well as the EU and UN, has been a resounding success for Europe.
Carrying a bat and others believing that you will use it will keep others off your porch, without you ever having to bash anyone's head in. The problem is when others begin to doubt you will use it, or even have the bat at all.
The fact that former Soviet republics and Eastern European nations want to be part of it to counter balance Russian influence tells you that many feel NATO is still relevant. Calling NATO's increase in membership 'Military Expansionism' is ridiculous. The first and foremost reason for NATO is security and defense. The one time it went offensive was to stop genocide of all things, which is one of the more noble reasons for going to war.
But from a Russian point of view, it is understandable that they have suspicions of the west. First and foremost, there is a long history of war between Russia and western Europe. But within the last hundred years, two of their founding fathers in the age of communism created a paranoid environment with not only a lack of trust towards outsiders, but within themselves. Not only did Germany invade during WWII and commit unspeakable crimes, but Italy, Romania, Hungary and the Slovak Republic went along with them. And during those early years the Soviet Union pleaded with the Allies for assistance, and to attack Germany to relieve some pressure from the Eastern Front, and what did they do? The allies invaded... Africa. Then eventually Italy. It wasn't until 1944 that the Allies finally landed not in Germany but in France. I am sure to many Russians it looked like we were dragging our feet so they suffered for longer. And out of that suffering the Warsaw Pact was born, which served to, first and foremost, to provide a buffer between Western Europe and the Russian homeland.
And then they had to endure a few more years of Stalin too. Stalin on his own might have killed just as many Russians as the Germans did (directly and indirectly). Anyone who was smart enough to put together that communism was BS was pretty much killed off, and what was left were mostly drones. The KGB is a product of those paranoid and controlling communist rulers, and Putin is a former KGB agent. The same paranoid and controlling mindset hasn't changed, its just packaged a little differently. And Communism by its very own doctrine is expansionist, so for some its easy to see Putin, who has called the fall of the Soviet Union 'the greatest geopolitical disaster of the 20th century', wanting to return Russia to its former Soviet glory, which will require expansionism.
Which goes along way to show you how crappy things must be in Russia now, or were in Russia before communism came along, for people to support Putin at all, when of course, he isn't forcing it on them to do it. And more so in any surrounding areas where some people feel they would actually be better off economically with closer ties to Russia. Wow.
But to argue today that Russia should fear an invasion by NATO is ridiculous, especially considering how soft Europe has become. At the end of the day, Russia has no one to blame but itself for how everyone views them, and the company they keep (Syria, Iran, etc).
That being said, I have several Russian friends who have moved to the US from Russia. And Ukraine. They seem to be more obsessed with money and bling than my other friends, but get past that and they are great people. But they definitely see the world in a different way. But none of them will ever move back to Russia which should tell you something. Nor do I see a huge migration of people wanting to move to Russia either. As a matter of fact, I believe their population is in decline, so major issues up ahead.
If you haven't checked out www.englishrussia.com, its pretty fascinating. Some of the things they have built is quite impressive. And in the same, so wasteful and obviously destined to fail. I feel bad for the typical Russian, who seem to have so much potential, as science and medical books are littered with Russian names. However, they are held back by their culture or politics, and I just wouldn't want their influence over me, and I can understand the countries around them feeling the same.
Their women are hot though. Until they get old. Sheesh.
But all that being said, yes NATO serves a purpose to the US as it helps it keep tabs on what other non-NATO members are doing, but I don't expect for a second that if the US mainland was under attack, that the French, Germans, or whoever would sending meaningful forces, if any at all, to help (besides we have enough guns here as it is). It mostly benefits Europe, which I would be fine with, so long as each countries contributed the amount they are supposed to. When they don't, it really pisses me off. The next time Putin flexes his muscles in the Baltics, I don't want to see US sending fighters to nearby bases, I want to see UK, French, and Germans doing it. I won't respect them until they do, and neither does Putin.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: There's a good chance that the next major flashpoint will not be between Russia and NATO, but between Russia and China in East Siberia...
Is there a particular place in Siberia that is in dispute now? I know they have clashed before.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: There's a good chance that the next major flashpoint will not be between Russia and NATO, but between Russia and China in East Siberia...
Is there a particular place in Siberia that is in dispute now? I know they have clashed before.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: There's a good chance that the next major flashpoint will not be between Russia and NATO, but between Russia and China in East Siberia...
Is there a particular place in Siberia that is in dispute now? I know they have clashed before.
It's entirely possible that both countries go to war out of a need for their leaders to appear strong and to prop up their struggling economies.
It could be. Many don't know what the reason the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and South East Asia when they did was because they had fought the Russians to a standstill in clashes in the 1930s, and weren't making as much progress as they had hoped in China, and the only other direction left was south. They had assumed if they knocked out the American fleet as they had the Russians in the Russo-Japanese war, the Americans would surrender.
Huge fail in that gamble.
However to your point, if the Chinese Government loses face in the South China Sea expansion not working out in their favor, I can see them rattling their sabres elsewhere. But to be honest I think they would have better progress against the disputed lands with India.
KTG17 wrote: The one time it went offensive was to stop genocide of all things, which is one of the more noble reasons for going to war.
When was that? Irak? That was for oil and to get rid of leader USA didn't agree with using even faked information about mass destruction weapons that never were there and which they knew full well.
It wasn't until 1944 that the Allies finally landed not in Germany but in France
And even that was move against Soviet union rather than German. Fact lost not by either side. German was already crushed so it was just question of what will Europe look like after it's over.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KTG17 wrote: It could be. Many don't know what the reason the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and South East Asia when they did was because they had fought the Russians to a standstill in clashes in the 1930s, and weren't making as much progress as they had hoped in China, and the only other direction left was south. They had assumed if they knocked out the American fleet as they had the Russians in the Russo-Japanese war, the Americans would surrender.
Well the attack on russia was pretty insignificant before Japanese decided "screw this route". They had more sense than German in realizing attack on Russia is doomed from the get-go. Doubly so for Japan. Logistics means the attack would be more akin to suicide. Russia couldn't really be fought down quickly and with Japan's lack of natural resources they are extremely unsuited for war of attrition.
And not neccessarily surrender but cripple USA's ability to influence that area long enough for Japan to get them and enough resources to allow them to force America to accept change of political status there. Gamble that might have worked had they not underestimated aircraft carriers rather than think in terms of WW1 naval. We are going to miss aircraft carriers? Continue anyway. We'll get the main targets aka battleships. That's enough.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: There's a good chance that the next major flashpoint will not be between Russia and NATO, but between Russia and China in East Siberia...
Is there a particular place in Siberia that is in dispute now? I know they have clashed before.
Siberia is mineral rich (oil, gas, etc) and some of the land that is now Russian territory was taken from the Chinese years ago by the unequal treaties, when the West carved up China.
China was weak and divided back then, but now that they're a rising power, they may decide to have that land back.
China is probably the largest real threat to Russian security. It shares a long continuous land border, has 10x the population and 5x the GDP, is engaged in extensive and shady business dealings in Siberia (and mostly in critical Russian economic sectors) and quite frankly has a lot more to gain than the nebulous "west".
Not that it means that the Chinese are actually planning or intending anything, but if you're looking at geopolitical risk, China is by far a greater threat to Russia than NATO, especially long term.
Vaktathi wrote: China is probably the largest real threat to Russian security. It shares a long continuous land border, has 10x the population and 5x the GDP, is engaged in extensive and shady business dealings in Siberia (and mostly in critical Russian economic sectors) and quite frankly has a lot more to gain than the nebulous "west".
Not that it means that the Chinese are actually planning or intending anything, but if you're looking at geopolitical risk, China is by far a greater threat to Russia than NATO, especially long term.
I found it telling of Russian-Chinese politics that, even at the height of the Cold War, the two Communist "superpowers" couldn't really get along.
And even that was move against Soviet union rather than German. Fact lost not by either side. German was already crushed so it was just question of what will Europe look like after it's over.
Whats really cool is how this one statement reveals so much about the poster.
Anti West revisionism without a shred of historical underpinning.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: It's not like all of NATO went into Iraq completely unified; France and a bunch of other countries refused, remember? Is it still a NATO operation when a bunch of members distance themselves from the entire thing?
France was not a part of NATO in 2003. They didn't rejoin NATO until 2009. In parts for growing concerns of the increasing militarism of an Eastern European nation...
AlmightyWalrus wrote: It's not like all of NATO went into Iraq completely unified; France and a bunch of other countries refused, remember? Is it still a NATO operation when a bunch of members distance themselves from the entire thing?
France was not a part of NATO in 2003. They didn't rejoin NATO until 2009. In parts for growing concerns of the increasing militarism of an Eastern European nation...
But still, according to wikipedia (so it may be wrong), the main forces going into the Iraq War as the initial invasion were the USA, UK, Australia and Poland. So no German forces, Spanish forces, Belgian, Canadian, Italian etc.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: It's not like all of NATO went into Iraq completely unified; France and a bunch of other countries refused, remember? Is it still a NATO operation when a bunch of members distance themselves from the entire thing?
France was not a part of NATO in 2003. They didn't rejoin NATO until 2009. In parts for growing concerns of the increasing militarism of an Eastern European nation...
But still, according to wikipedia (so it may be wrong), the main forces going into the Iraq War as the initial invasion were the USA, UK, Australia and Poland. So no German forces, Spanish forces, Belgian, Canadian, Italian etc.
Iraq was not a NATO event, never was. Afghanistan was.
Canada was involved in Iraq as well, not a major player, but they were still there. Credit where it is due.
KTG17 wrote: The one time it went offensive was to stop genocide of all things, which is one of the more noble reasons for going to war.
When was that? Irak? That was for oil and to get rid of leader USA didn't agree with using even faked information about mass destruction weapons that never were there and which they knew full well.
I believe they were referring to the Balkans and the genocide taking place in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
Other NATO offensive operations mentioned on the NATO webpage;
Afghanistan
Macedonia
Horn of Africa (Somalia, Gulf of Aden)
Libya
Kosovo
Given that all of these along with other defensive orientated missions have taken place since the end of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact with the over whelming majority taking place since 2001, it would seem to support the position that NATO's mission is what it originally was, a military alliance that allows it's members to provide collective security and deterrence and project military power when faced by external threats. Of course this feeds back into what one might would consider Russia's legitimate concerns with NATO. Since if NATO is not a threat to Russia and is a moribund institution that is a historical anachronism, why has NATO conducted more missions and campaigns outside of it's member nation's borders in the relative recent past than before the breakup of the USSR and the Warsaw pact.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: It's not like all of NATO went into Iraq completely unified; France and a bunch of other countries refused, remember? Is it still a NATO operation when a bunch of members distance themselves from the entire thing?
France was not a part of NATO in 2003. They didn't rejoin NATO until 2009. In parts for growing concerns of the increasing militarism of an Eastern European nation...
If I'm not mistaken France was part of NATO, just not the NATO unified military command after DeGaulle's withdrawal until 2009.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: It's not like all of NATO went into Iraq completely unified; France and a bunch of other countries refused, remember? Is it still a NATO operation when a bunch of members distance themselves from the entire thing?
France was not a part of NATO in 2003. They didn't rejoin NATO until 2009. In parts for growing concerns of the increasing militarism of an Eastern European nation...
If I'm not mistaken France was part of NATO, just not the NATO unified military command after DeGaulle's withdrawal until 2009.
I worked in a strategic level air operations center from 2007-2012. Prior to 2009, France had zero military integration with NATO forces, we weren't even allowed to use their air space when transporting for NATO missions.
For all intents and purposes, France was not a part of NATO.
KTG17 wrote: The one time it went offensive was to stop genocide of all things, which is one of the more noble reasons for going to war.
When was that? Irak? That was for oil and to get rid of leader USA didn't agree with using even faked information about mass destruction weapons that never were there and which they knew full well.
No, Yugoslavia.
And even that was move against Soviet union rather than German. Fact lost not by either side. German was already crushed so it was just question of what will Europe look like after it's over
Wrong. Stalin insisted on western allied intervention on mainland Europe to relieve pressure on the eastern front, and made that case at the Tehran Conference. As a matter of fact the Russians launched attacks in the east to put pressure on the Germans to not be able to reinforce their forces in France.
Had the Russians not needed western allied intervention, he would have said, "No worries, we got this."
If there was no Normandy, there would have been no fall of Berlin. The germans and russians would have fought to a stalemate.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lord of Deeds wrote: Since if NATO is not a threat to Russia and is a moribund institution that is a historical anachronism, why has NATO conducted more missions and campaigns outside of it's member nation's borders in the relative recent past than before the breakup of the USSR and the Warsaw pact.
NATO works where the UN wont. Especially where certain powers have veto rights and their own self interest.
If NATO didn't exist, believe me something else would.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: It's not like all of NATO went into Iraq completely unified; France and a bunch of other countries refused, remember? Is it still a NATO operation when a bunch of members distance themselves from the entire thing?
France was not a part of NATO in 2003. They didn't rejoin NATO until 2009. In parts for growing concerns of the increasing militarism of an Eastern European nation...
If I'm not mistaken France was part of NATO, just not the NATO unified military command after DeGaulle's withdrawal until 2009.
I worked in a strategic level air operations center from 2007-2012. Prior to 2009, France had zero military integration with NATO forces, we weren't even allowed to use their air space when transporting for NATO missions.
For all intents and purposes, France was not a part of NATO.
I have to agree with Vaktathi but can't prove it off the top of my head. . . but I believe France had some minor role, because I think there was an instance where they were going to vote on taking action on something, and knowing France objected, held the vote in a committee that France wasn't part of because of their limited involvement. It might have even been in Yugoslavia, but I can't remember.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: It's not like all of NATO went into Iraq completely unified; France and a bunch of other countries refused, remember? Is it still a NATO operation when a bunch of members distance themselves from the entire thing?
France was not a part of NATO in 2003. They didn't rejoin NATO until 2009. In parts for growing concerns of the increasing militarism of an Eastern European nation...
If I'm not mistaken France was part of NATO, just not the NATO unified military command after DeGaulle's withdrawal until 2009.
I worked in a strategic level air operations center from 2007-2012. Prior to 2009, France had zero military integration with NATO forces, we weren't even allowed to use their air space when transporting for NATO missions.
For all intents and purposes, France was not a part of NATO.
I was under the impression that they would still be bound by article 5 and had procedures in place to integrate in the event of an article 5 invocation no? I get that for the practical day to day stuff they were a PITA when it came to NATO, but I seem to remember France having "oh snap" plans in place when their pretense needed to be dropped.
KTG17 wrote: [
Wrong. Stalin insisted on western allied intervention on mainland Europe to relieve pressure on the eastern front, and made that case at the Tehran Conference. As a matter of fact the Russians launched attacks in the east to put pressure on the Germans to not be able to reinforce their forces in France.
Had the Russians not needed western allied intervention, he would have said, "No worries, we got this."
If there was no Normandy, there would have been no fall of Berlin. The germans and russians would have fought to a stalemate.
Hrm, by the time of Normandy, the Germans werent going to win and to Red Army was going to beat them, particularly with Hitler continuing to issue militarily absurd orders. The issue would have been how many more Soviet troops would have had to die and how much longer would it have taken? By this point the Germans were running out of trained and experienced people while the Red Army was finally getting such people into the right places and once Romania was taken then German fuel supplies would be cut off. The soviet offensive of late June 44 inflicted a lot more damage than Normandy did.
Ther Germans might have been able to fight the Red Army to a standstill after Kursk with a different leader, but by mid 44 it was pooched and everyone knew it.
Normandy helped speed things up and gave the Western allies hegemony over western europe in the postwar world and decreased the ultimate Red Army bodycount, but was not a deciding battle in the ultimate outcome.
Though if it hadn't been for the threat of D-Day the Germans could have pulled those forces from Western Europe and used them to bolster the Eastern Front.
Normandy helped speed things up and gave the Western allies hegemony over western europe in the postwar world and decreased the ultimate Red Army bodycount, but was not a deciding battle in the ultimate outcome.
There were 140 German divisions involved in the Battle of France. Had those been available in the east it I doubt the Russians would have made it all the way. Kicked the Germans out of Russia? Yes. But the final border would have rested in Poland probably.
Then again, who knows what Hitler would have done to screw that up.
KTG17 wrote:One could argue that NATO has been a success, and should continue to exist as long as current members and those who want to join feel it is still relevant. The original premise of NATO was 'To keep America in, Germany down, and Russia out'. Europe was concerned about it's violent past (can't blame Germany for all that though), Russian expansionism, and American investment in economic and military security. Just on those alone, NATO, as well as the EU and UN, has been a resounding success for Europe.
Carrying a bat and others believing that you will use it will keep others off your porch, without you ever having to bash anyone's head in. The problem is when others begin to doubt you will use it, or even have the bat at all.
The fact that former Soviet republics and Eastern European nations want to be part of it to counter balance Russian influence tells you that many feel NATO is still relevant. Calling NATO's increase in membership 'Military Expansionism' is ridiculous. The first and foremost reason for NATO is security and defense. The one time it went offensive was to stop genocide of all things, which is one of the more noble reasons for going to war.
But from a Russian point of view, it is understandable that they have suspicions of the west. First and foremost, there is a long history of war between Russia and western Europe. But within the last hundred years, two of their founding fathers in the age of communism created a paranoid environment with not only a lack of trust towards outsiders, but within themselves. Not only did Germany invade during WWII and commit unspeakable crimes, but Italy, Romania, Hungary and the Slovak Republic went along with them. And during those early years the Soviet Union pleaded with the Allies for assistance, and to attack Germany to relieve some pressure from the Eastern Front, and what did they do? The allies invaded... Africa. Then eventually Italy. It wasn't until 1944 that the Allies finally landed not in Germany but in France. I am sure to many Russians it looked like we were dragging our feet so they suffered for longer. And out of that suffering the Warsaw Pact was born, which served to, first and foremost, to provide a buffer between Western Europe and the Russian homeland.
And then they had to endure a few more years of Stalin too. Stalin on his own might have killed just as many Russians as the Germans did (directly and indirectly). Anyone who was smart enough to put together that communism was BS was pretty much killed off, and what was left were mostly drones. The KGB is a product of those paranoid and controlling communist rulers, and Putin is a former KGB agent. The same paranoid and controlling mindset hasn't changed, its just packaged a little differently. And Communism by its very own doctrine is expansionist, so for some its easy to see Putin, who has called the fall of the Soviet Union 'the greatest geopolitical disaster of the 20th century', wanting to return Russia to its former Soviet glory, which will require expansionism.
Which goes along way to show you how crappy things must be in Russia now, or were in Russia before communism came along, for people to support Putin at all, when of course, he isn't forcing it on them to do it. And more so in any surrounding areas where some people feel they would actually be better off economically with closer ties to Russia. Wow.
But to argue today that Russia should fear an invasion by NATO is ridiculous, especially considering how soft Europe has become. At the end of the day, Russia has no one to blame but itself for how everyone views them, and the company they keep (Syria, Iran, etc).
That being said, I have several Russian friends who have moved to the US from Russia. And Ukraine. They seem to be more obsessed with money and bling than my other friends, but get past that and they are great people. But they definitely see the world in a different way. But none of them will ever move back to Russia which should tell you something. Nor do I see a huge migration of people wanting to move to Russia either. As a matter of fact, I believe their population is in decline, so major issues up ahead.
If you haven't checked out www.englishrussia.com, its pretty fascinating. Some of the things they have built is quite impressive. And in the same, so wasteful and obviously destined to fail. I feel bad for the typical Russian, who seem to have so much potential, as science and medical books are littered with Russian names. However, they are held back by their culture or politics, and I just wouldn't want their influence over me, and I can understand the countries around them feeling the same.
Their women are hot though. Until they get old. Sheesh.
But all that being said, yes NATO serves a purpose to the US as it helps it keep tabs on what other non-NATO members are doing, but I don't expect for a second that if the US mainland was under attack, that the French, Germans, or whoever would sending meaningful forces, if any at all, to help (besides we have enough guns here as it is). It mostly benefits Europe, which I would be fine with, so long as each countries contributed the amount they are supposed to. When they don't, it really pisses me off. The next time Putin flexes his muscles in the Baltics, I don't want to see US sending fighters to nearby bases, I want to see UK, French, and Germans doing it. I won't respect them until they do, and neither does Putin.
Competition! Cramp as many Russian stereotypes into one post as you possibly can! KTG17 here has a good start, who will rise to challenge him? Price: A Soviet bottle of Vodka!
One part of me really wants to call out such mostly incorrect and discriminating stereotypes, but the other part of me sees that it is probably a hopeless, losing battle. I kinda have given up hope and stopped caring, I can't influence it either way. With some luck, maybe people will one day realise their ignorance and attempt to learn. That'd be nice.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:There's a good chance that the next major flashpoint will not be between Russia and NATO, but between Russia and China in East Siberia...
Unlikely. There is no current tension between Russian and China, nor are there any territorial disputes. On the contrary, Russia and China have built excellent relations with each other since the fall of the USSR, settled all outstanding territorial disputes and now cooperate closely in military and economical areas through organisations such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. Besides, why would China even invade Siberia? Siberia barely borders China at all and its resources are already fully exploited by Chinese companies through the power of friendship (and capitalism). Why would China take by force that which it can take by money and cooperation?
It was very much an Allied victory. Without the USSR fighting in the East, the Western allies would have little hope of a successful invasion, and without the threat of an allied naval invasion, the soviets would not have been able to push into Germany, or even, necessarily, take Poland. I hat how this stuff always turns into "RUSSIA STRONK!" vs. "MURICA!" It was an allied victory, stop using it to score imaginary points.
Vaktathi wrote: If I'm not mistaken France was part of NATO, just not the NATO unified military command after DeGaulle's withdrawal until 2009.
IIRC France left NATO when deGaulle was still in power, so....
They left the unified NATO command structure, but not the alliance, essentially meaning they would operate independently but still be bound by article 5 if it were invoked.
Vaktathi wrote: If I'm not mistaken France was part of NATO, just not the NATO unified military command after DeGaulle's withdrawal until 2009.
IIRC France left NATO when deGaulle was still in power, so....
There was a secret accord between France and NATO to integrate France back into NATO in the event of a Soviet invasion of West Germany, and France publicly stated that any invasion of West Germany would present a clear threat to French sovereignty.
It’s not clear the organization can effectively confront—or even survive—today’s challenges.
What if the United Nations didn’t exist? It’s a question easily answered, because for nearly all of human history, it didn’t. History “teaches us that order in international relations is the exception, rather than the rule,” Kevin Rudd, the former Australian prime minister, writes in a new report on the uncertain future of the UN. “Since the rise of the modern nation-state, both prior to and following the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, disorder has been the dominant characteristic of inter-state relations.” We tend to think of the United Nations as just another part of the global furniture. But it’s actually a recent addition.
Over the last 500 years, Rudd notes, “there have been four major efforts in Europe to construct order after periods of sustained carnage”: in 1648, after the Thirty Years’ and Eighty Years’ wars; in 1815, after the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars; in 1919, after World War I; and in 1945, after World War II. “The first three of these ‘orders’ have had, at best, patchy records of success. The jury is still out on the fourth.”
RELATED STORY
The Thucydides Trap: Are the U.S. and China Headed for War?
That fourth attempt—the United Nations—is now in a period of transition as the race for the organization’s top job nears its end. It’s the most important election nobody’s ever heard of, and hinges on secret straw polls at the Security Council that could yield a result within the month. Rudd, whose name was once mentioned among the potential contenders to replace Ban Ki-moon as secretary-general, is not in the mix. (Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull refused to nominate him.) But the study he released this week as chair of the Independent Commission on Multilateralism is a guide to the global forces that will confront whoever takes the job—including the possibility that the United Nations itself, though it’s unlikely to collapse anytime soon, might gradually atrophy to the point of irrelevance.
The concept of entropy in international relations is instructive here, Rudd writes: “Under this argument, any international order, once established, is immediately subject to the natural processes of decline and decay, ultimately resulting in a return to disorder.”
There is “growing evidence of nation-states walking around the UN to solve major problems and then perhaps coming back to the UN when it’s all done as some sort of diplomatic afterthought,” Rudd told me. The United Nations continues to establish rules for how people and states should conduct themselves in the world. “The problem is, if you simply set norms and don’t do anything about the execution of those norms, as the international agency given that function back under the charter of 1945, then you start to lose complete relevance over time.”
“We are facing the biggest set of external changes and challenges to the global order since 1991.”
I asked Rudd whether the remaining secretary-general candidates were advocating the kinds of reforms he’d like implemented at the United Nations. “I ... understand that in a competitive selection process such as this, many candidates are going to choose to be publicly diplomatic about the sort of problems the UN faces,” he responded. Presumably he himself can be less diplomatic, now that he is no longer auditioning to be the world’s chief diplomat.
“We are facing the biggest set of external changes and challenges to the global order since 1991,” following the fall of the Soviet Union, Rudd told me. “Over the last 25 years, we haven’t seen anything comparable to the current state of great-power relations. We haven’t seen anything comparable to the current intensity of the globalization process. We haven’t seen anything comparable to the emergence, for example, of terrorism as a mainstream threat to many societies across the world. These are new phenomen[a]. Each age has had its own new phenomenon. But in a quarter of a century, which is a long time [for] an institution that only has a 70-year history, it’s a set of circumstances which should cause us to act.”
Rudd’s report includes numerous prescriptions for reinventing the institution, from striking a new international agreement on resettling refugees to more rigorously measuring the results of UN initiatives. The United Nations, Rudd told me, is much better at reacting to crises than anticipating and preventing them. He proposes investing in a policy-planning staff that can analyze global trends several years into the future, and in what he calls “preventive diplomacy.” As an example, he cited the UN’s appointment in 2013 of the former president of East Timor, Jose Ramos-Horta, as a special representative to the West African nation of Guinea-Bissau, which had just experienced a military coup; within roughly a year, Ramos-Horta had helped forge enough political consensus for elections to be held. Prevention could also mean, for instance, prepositioning food aid in countries at the earliest warnings of famine, or tracking unemployment patterns to predict where violent extremism could emerge.
But it’s Rudd’s diagnosis of what’s ailing the United Nations that is particularly notable. The rise of non-state actors such as terrorist groups, intensifying rivalries between the United States and Russia and China, and a fierce backlash against globalization are all challenging the “assumption of recent decades that the dynamics of greater global integration were somehow unstoppable,” he writes.
The United Nations “is the worst system of international governance except for all the others.”
This is an urgent problem, Rudd argues in the report, because despite its many failings, the United Nations “is the worst system of international governance except for all the others.” Among other things, he writes, the UN has helped avert another world war; played a role in drastically reducing the share of the global population living in extreme poverty; created a system of dispute-settlement institutions to counteract the “long and malignant history of territorial and trade disputes” sparking international conflict; staved off the “all-out proliferation of nuclear weapons” that looked so likely in the early 1960s; and provided humanitarian relief to vulnerable populations that, before the advent of the UN, were often “simply left to die.”
But recent years have brought worrying signs of weakness, according to Rudd. The UN wasn’t a participant in international talks to restrict Iran’s nuclear program, he points out, even though one of its institutions, the International Atomic Energy Agency, was tasked with helping implement the resulting agreement. The UN has been similarly absent from efforts to address other major security challenges like the war in Ukraine and the acceleration of North Korea’s nuclear program. It sluggishly responded to the Ebola epidemic in West Africa, and has bungled the refugee crisis in the Middle East and Europe. And it has failed to prevent mass atrocities and resolve chronic conflict in countries like South Sudan and Syria. The UN’s role in spreading a cholera epidemic in Haiti through the unsanitary practices of its peacekeepers—a role the organization only recently acknowledged, after years of denials—has further tarnished the institution’s image.
Meanwhile, escalating tensions between the United States and China over cyberspace and territorial disputes in the East and South China Seas, and between the United States and Russia over NATO expansion and Russian actions in Ukraine, threaten to make the UN Security Council—where all three countries can veto resolutions as permanent members—as dysfunctional as it was during the Cold War.
Rudd adds that as terrorism spreads around the world, becoming the top security priority for many countries, the United Nations has failed to adequately respond to, or even define, the problem, which doesn’t easily fit within the UN’s state-centric view of the world. “[T]he UN has been unsuccessful in confronting the question of state-funded terrorist activity, in dealing with the political, economic, and social root causes of terrorism, and in agreeing and promulgating a global narrative on countering violent extremism,” he writes.
Most striking is Rudd’s assessment of the predicament national political leaders find themselves in, given that he was, not so long ago, one himself. These leaders, he writes, “are no longer, in substance, capable of delivering self-contained, national solutions to the problems faced by their people,” which “contributes to a related crisis of legitimacy for the international institutions nation-states have constructed.”
This crisis of legitimacy has direct bearing on the future of the United Nations. Countries, Rudd writes, are increasingly split between “globalists” and “localists,” particularly amid feeble economic growth following the 2008 financial crisis:
This, in turn, is beginning to create a fertile political space for more extreme political movements, either of the far left or the far right, driven by populist protest against the broad, globalizing consensus of the mainstream political center that has by and large prevailed over the last few decades.
Protectionist sympathies are therefore on the rise, as are xenophobic approaches to migration and, more broadly, a political impetus to “throw up the walls” against the forces of continuing globalization. This, in turn, is breeding new nationalist and mercantilist movements, which vilify not only their own governments, but also the regional and global institutions of which their governments are members and to which too much sovereignty, in their view, has already been ceded.
The net result is a fracturing and failure of national politics. We are seeing weakening national support for regional institutions such as the European Union. Global institutions such as the UN are seen as even more remote from local concerns.
On a daily basis, we hear reports of the United Nations succeeding with this or that, or failing to do this or that. But we rarely pause to consider what these successes and failures say about the relevance of the UN in the world today—and what the world would look like without it. Rudd’s report can ultimately be read as a plea for something pretty basic: to not take the United Nations for granted.
It’s not clear the organization can effectively confront—or even survive—today’s challenges.
What if the United Nations didn’t exist? It’s a question easily answered, because for nearly all of human history, it didn’t. History “teaches us that order in international relations is the exception, rather than the rule,” Kevin Rudd, the former Australian prime minister, writes in a new report on the uncertain future of the UN. “Since the rise of the modern nation-state, both prior to and following the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, disorder has been the dominant characteristic of inter-state relations.” We tend to think of the United Nations as just another part of the global furniture. But it’s actually a recent addition.
Over the last 500 years, Rudd notes, “there have been four major efforts in Europe to construct order after periods of sustained carnage”: in 1648, after the Thirty Years’ and Eighty Years’ wars; in 1815, after the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars; in 1919, after World War I; and in 1945, after World War II. “The first three of these ‘orders’ have had, at best, patchy records of success. The jury is still out on the fourth.”
RELATED STORY
The Thucydides Trap: Are the U.S. and China Headed for War?
That fourth attempt—the United Nations—is now in a period of transition as the race for the organization’s top job nears its end. It’s the most important election nobody’s ever heard of, and hinges on secret straw polls at the Security Council that could yield a result within the month. Rudd, whose name was once mentioned among the potential contenders to replace Ban Ki-moon as secretary-general, is not in the mix. (Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull refused to nominate him.) But the study he released this week as chair of the Independent Commission on Multilateralism is a guide to the global forces that will confront whoever takes the job—including the possibility that the United Nations itself, though it’s unlikely to collapse anytime soon, might gradually atrophy to the point of irrelevance.
The concept of entropy in international relations is instructive here, Rudd writes: “Under this argument, any international order, once established, is immediately subject to the natural processes of decline and decay, ultimately resulting in a return to disorder.”
There is “growing evidence of nation-states walking around the UN to solve major problems and then perhaps coming back to the UN when it’s all done as some sort of diplomatic afterthought,” Rudd told me. The United Nations continues to establish rules for how people and states should conduct themselves in the world. “The problem is, if you simply set norms and don’t do anything about the execution of those norms, as the international agency given that function back under the charter of 1945, then you start to lose complete relevance over time.”
“We are facing the biggest set of external changes and challenges to the global order since 1991.”
I asked Rudd whether the remaining secretary-general candidates were advocating the kinds of reforms he’d like implemented at the United Nations. “I ... understand that in a competitive selection process such as this, many candidates are going to choose to be publicly diplomatic about the sort of problems the UN faces,” he responded. Presumably he himself can be less diplomatic, now that he is no longer auditioning to be the world’s chief diplomat.
“We are facing the biggest set of external changes and challenges to the global order since 1991,” following the fall of the Soviet Union, Rudd told me. “Over the last 25 years, we haven’t seen anything comparable to the current state of great-power relations. We haven’t seen anything comparable to the current intensity of the globalization process. We haven’t seen anything comparable to the emergence, for example, of terrorism as a mainstream threat to many societies across the world. These are new phenomen[a]. Each age has had its own new phenomenon. But in a quarter of a century, which is a long time [for] an institution that only has a 70-year history, it’s a set of circumstances which should cause us to act.”
Rudd’s report includes numerous prescriptions for reinventing the institution, from striking a new international agreement on resettling refugees to more rigorously measuring the results of UN initiatives. The United Nations, Rudd told me, is much better at reacting to crises than anticipating and preventing them. He proposes investing in a policy-planning staff that can analyze global trends several years into the future, and in what he calls “preventive diplomacy.” As an example, he cited the UN’s appointment in 2013 of the former president of East Timor, Jose Ramos-Horta, as a special representative to the West African nation of Guinea-Bissau, which had just experienced a military coup; within roughly a year, Ramos-Horta had helped forge enough political consensus for elections to be held. Prevention could also mean, for instance, prepositioning food aid in countries at the earliest warnings of famine, or tracking unemployment patterns to predict where violent extremism could emerge.
But it’s Rudd’s diagnosis of what’s ailing the United Nations that is particularly notable. The rise of non-state actors such as terrorist groups, intensifying rivalries between the United States and Russia and China, and a fierce backlash against globalization are all challenging the “assumption of recent decades that the dynamics of greater global integration were somehow unstoppable,” he writes.
The United Nations “is the worst system of international governance except for all the others.”
This is an urgent problem, Rudd argues in the report, because despite its many failings, the United Nations “is the worst system of international governance except for all the others.” Among other things, he writes, the UN has helped avert another world war; played a role in drastically reducing the share of the global population living in extreme poverty; created a system of dispute-settlement institutions to counteract the “long and malignant history of territorial and trade disputes” sparking international conflict; staved off the “all-out proliferation of nuclear weapons” that looked so likely in the early 1960s; and provided humanitarian relief to vulnerable populations that, before the advent of the UN, were often “simply left to die.”
But recent years have brought worrying signs of weakness, according to Rudd. The UN wasn’t a participant in international talks to restrict Iran’s nuclear program, he points out, even though one of its institutions, the International Atomic Energy Agency, was tasked with helping implement the resulting agreement. The UN has been similarly absent from efforts to address other major security challenges like the war in Ukraine and the acceleration of North Korea’s nuclear program. It sluggishly responded to the Ebola epidemic in West Africa, and has bungled the refugee crisis in the Middle East and Europe. And it has failed to prevent mass atrocities and resolve chronic conflict in countries like South Sudan and Syria. The UN’s role in spreading a cholera epidemic in Haiti through the unsanitary practices of its peacekeepers—a role the organization only recently acknowledged, after years of denials—has further tarnished the institution’s image.
Meanwhile, escalating tensions between the United States and China over cyberspace and territorial disputes in the East and South China Seas, and between the United States and Russia over NATO expansion and Russian actions in Ukraine, threaten to make the UN Security Council—where all three countries can veto resolutions as permanent members—as dysfunctional as it was during the Cold War.
Rudd adds that as terrorism spreads around the world, becoming the top security priority for many countries, the United Nations has failed to adequately respond to, or even define, the problem, which doesn’t easily fit within the UN’s state-centric view of the world. “[T]he UN has been unsuccessful in confronting the question of state-funded terrorist activity, in dealing with the political, economic, and social root causes of terrorism, and in agreeing and promulgating a global narrative on countering violent extremism,” he writes.
Most striking is Rudd’s assessment of the predicament national political leaders find themselves in, given that he was, not so long ago, one himself. These leaders, he writes, “are no longer, in substance, capable of delivering self-contained, national solutions to the problems faced by their people,” which “contributes to a related crisis of legitimacy for the international institutions nation-states have constructed.”
This crisis of legitimacy has direct bearing on the future of the United Nations. Countries, Rudd writes, are increasingly split between “globalists” and “localists,” particularly amid feeble economic growth following the 2008 financial crisis:
This, in turn, is beginning to create a fertile political space for more extreme political movements, either of the far left or the far right, driven by populist protest against the broad, globalizing consensus of the mainstream political center that has by and large prevailed over the last few decades.
Protectionist sympathies are therefore on the rise, as are xenophobic approaches to migration and, more broadly, a political impetus to “throw up the walls” against the forces of continuing globalization. This, in turn, is breeding new nationalist and mercantilist movements, which vilify not only their own governments, but also the regional and global institutions of which their governments are members and to which too much sovereignty, in their view, has already been ceded.
The net result is a fracturing and failure of national politics. We are seeing weakening national support for regional institutions such as the European Union. Global institutions such as the UN are seen as even more remote from local concerns.
On a daily basis, we hear reports of the United Nations succeeding with this or that, or failing to do this or that. But we rarely pause to consider what these successes and failures say about the relevance of the UN in the world today—and what the world would look like without it. Rudd’s report can ultimately be read as a plea for something pretty basic: to not take the United Nations for granted.
The UN should be given more power. The UN is a great idea, but it is just so powerless that is doomed to fail in its most important goals of preventing war and other atrocities.
The UN is of no consequence, it is merely high minded idealism. The great powers of the world will simply ignore it, that is those that do not dictate its agenda. The UN has failed to secure peace in the world, the tyrants and dictators know it is a toothless lion. Without NATO the Russians would have devoured the Baltic States, and likely a large chunk of Ukraine's eastern territories. The ICC is nothing but a cudgel to attack African rulers, who happen to be the only ones not strong enough to simply ignore it. China and North Korea have shown a complete disregard for any UN ruling against them, so basically the only nations who feel compelled to be bound by its rulings are the ones not likely to cause much harm anyhow. So yeah NATO is definitely needed, the UN, we could do without.
thekingofkings wrote: The UN is of no consequence, it is merely high minded idealism. The great powers of the world will simply ignore it, that is those that do not dictate its agenda. The UN has failed to secure peace in the world, the tyrants and dictators know it is a toothless lion. Without NATO the Russians would have devoured the Baltic States, and likely a large chunk of Ukraine's eastern territories. The ICC is nothing but a cudgel to attack African rulers, who happen to be the only ones not strong enough to simply ignore it. China and North Korea have shown a complete disregard for any UN ruling against them, so basically the only nations who feel compelled to be bound by its rulings are the ones not likely to cause much harm anyhow. So yeah NATO is definitely needed, the UN, we could do without.
On the other hand, t the UN can be seen as a measure for which states are willing to work together and which are not is not useless. Going against the UN can be interpreted as going against the international community, and being uncooperative, and thus hurts international relations. You cooperate not because the UN has teeth, but because the UN participation and general cooperation is good PR.
The main problem with that line of thought is that anyone who wants to ignore the UN can simply cite its loaded charter, proclaim the organization biased and nothing more than an extension of western political interests. Thus the problem wouldn't be that the UN is toothless, but that the UN is too easily dismissed as showing preferential treatment.
thekingofkings wrote: The UN is of no consequence, it is merely high minded idealism. The great powers of the world will simply ignore it, that is those that do not dictate its agenda. The UN has failed to secure peace in the world, the tyrants and dictators know it is a toothless lion. Without NATO the Russians would have devoured the Baltic States, and likely a large chunk of Ukraine's eastern territories. The ICC is nothing but a cudgel to attack African rulers, who happen to be the only ones not strong enough to simply ignore it. China and North Korea have shown a complete disregard for any UN ruling against them, so basically the only nations who feel compelled to be bound by its rulings are the ones not likely to cause much harm anyhow. So yeah NATO is definitely needed, the UN, we could do without.
So why do you think Russia would have "devoured" the Baltic States and Eastern Ukraine without NATO? From where did you get such information?
thekingofkings wrote: The UN is of no consequence, it is merely high minded idealism. The great powers of the world will simply ignore it, that is those that do not dictate its agenda. The UN has failed to secure peace in the world, the tyrants and dictators know it is a toothless lion. Without NATO the Russians would have devoured the Baltic States, and likely a large chunk of Ukraine's eastern territories. The ICC is nothing but a cudgel to attack African rulers, who happen to be the only ones not strong enough to simply ignore it. China and North Korea have shown a complete disregard for any UN ruling against them, so basically the only nations who feel compelled to be bound by its rulings are the ones not likely to cause much harm anyhow. So yeah NATO is definitely needed, the UN, we could do without.
So why do you think Russia would have "devoured" the Baltic States and Eastern Ukraine without NATO? From where did you get such information?
Due to its long history of being rapacious towards its smaller neighbors. There is good reason for the Baltic states to fear Russia, it conquers them every chance it gets. It has not been a particularly good neighbor to Finland or Poland either.
It’s not clear the organization can effectively confront—or even survive—today’s challenges.
What if the United Nations didn’t exist? It’s a question easily answered, because for nearly all of human history, it didn’t. History “teaches us that order in international relations is the exception, rather than the rule,” Kevin Rudd, the former Australian prime minister, writes in a new report on the uncertain future of the UN. “Since the rise of the modern nation-state, both prior to and following the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, disorder has been the dominant characteristic of inter-state relations.” We tend to think of the United Nations as just another part of the global furniture. But it’s actually a recent addition.
Over the last 500 years, Rudd notes, “there have been four major efforts in Europe to construct order after periods of sustained carnage”: in 1648, after the Thirty Years’ and Eighty Years’ wars; in 1815, after the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars; in 1919, after World War I; and in 1945, after World War II. “The first three of these ‘orders’ have had, at best, patchy records of success. The jury is still out on the fourth.”
RELATED STORY
The Thucydides Trap: Are the U.S. and China Headed for War?
That fourth attempt—the United Nations—is now in a period of transition as the race for the organization’s top job nears its end. It’s the most important election nobody’s ever heard of, and hinges on secret straw polls at the Security Council that could yield a result within the month. Rudd, whose name was once mentioned among the potential contenders to replace Ban Ki-moon as secretary-general, is not in the mix. (Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull refused to nominate him.) But the study he released this week as chair of the Independent Commission on Multilateralism is a guide to the global forces that will confront whoever takes the job—including the possibility that the United Nations itself, though it’s unlikely to collapse anytime soon, might gradually atrophy to the point of irrelevance.
The concept of entropy in international relations is instructive here, Rudd writes: “Under this argument, any international order, once established, is immediately subject to the natural processes of decline and decay, ultimately resulting in a return to disorder.”
There is “growing evidence of nation-states walking around the UN to solve major problems and then perhaps coming back to the UN when it’s all done as some sort of diplomatic afterthought,” Rudd told me. The United Nations continues to establish rules for how people and states should conduct themselves in the world. “The problem is, if you simply set norms and don’t do anything about the execution of those norms, as the international agency given that function back under the charter of 1945, then you start to lose complete relevance over time.”
“We are facing the biggest set of external changes and challenges to the global order since 1991.”
I asked Rudd whether the remaining secretary-general candidates were advocating the kinds of reforms he’d like implemented at the United Nations. “I ... understand that in a competitive selection process such as this, many candidates are going to choose to be publicly diplomatic about the sort of problems the UN faces,” he responded. Presumably he himself can be less diplomatic, now that he is no longer auditioning to be the world’s chief diplomat.
“We are facing the biggest set of external changes and challenges to the global order since 1991,” following the fall of the Soviet Union, Rudd told me. “Over the last 25 years, we haven’t seen anything comparable to the current state of great-power relations. We haven’t seen anything comparable to the current intensity of the globalization process. We haven’t seen anything comparable to the emergence, for example, of terrorism as a mainstream threat to many societies across the world. These are new phenomen[a]. Each age has had its own new phenomenon. But in a quarter of a century, which is a long time [for] an institution that only has a 70-year history, it’s a set of circumstances which should cause us to act.”
Rudd’s report includes numerous prescriptions for reinventing the institution, from striking a new international agreement on resettling refugees to more rigorously measuring the results of UN initiatives. The United Nations, Rudd told me, is much better at reacting to crises than anticipating and preventing them. He proposes investing in a policy-planning staff that can analyze global trends several years into the future, and in what he calls “preventive diplomacy.” As an example, he cited the UN’s appointment in 2013 of the former president of East Timor, Jose Ramos-Horta, as a special representative to the West African nation of Guinea-Bissau, which had just experienced a military coup; within roughly a year, Ramos-Horta had helped forge enough political consensus for elections to be held. Prevention could also mean, for instance, prepositioning food aid in countries at the earliest warnings of famine, or tracking unemployment patterns to predict where violent extremism could emerge.
But it’s Rudd’s diagnosis of what’s ailing the United Nations that is particularly notable. The rise of non-state actors such as terrorist groups, intensifying rivalries between the United States and Russia and China, and a fierce backlash against globalization are all challenging the “assumption of recent decades that the dynamics of greater global integration were somehow unstoppable,” he writes.
The United Nations “is the worst system of international governance except for all the others.”
This is an urgent problem, Rudd argues in the report, because despite its many failings, the United Nations “is the worst system of international governance except for all the others.” Among other things, he writes, the UN has helped avert another world war; played a role in drastically reducing the share of the global population living in extreme poverty; created a system of dispute-settlement institutions to counteract the “long and malignant history of territorial and trade disputes” sparking international conflict; staved off the “all-out proliferation of nuclear weapons” that looked so likely in the early 1960s; and provided humanitarian relief to vulnerable populations that, before the advent of the UN, were often “simply left to die.”
But recent years have brought worrying signs of weakness, according to Rudd. The UN wasn’t a participant in international talks to restrict Iran’s nuclear program, he points out, even though one of its institutions, the International Atomic Energy Agency, was tasked with helping implement the resulting agreement. The UN has been similarly absent from efforts to address other major security challenges like the war in Ukraine and the acceleration of North Korea’s nuclear program. It sluggishly responded to the Ebola epidemic in West Africa, and has bungled the refugee crisis in the Middle East and Europe. And it has failed to prevent mass atrocities and resolve chronic conflict in countries like South Sudan and Syria. The UN’s role in spreading a cholera epidemic in Haiti through the unsanitary practices of its peacekeepers—a role the organization only recently acknowledged, after years of denials—has further tarnished the institution’s image.
Meanwhile, escalating tensions between the United States and China over cyberspace and territorial disputes in the East and South China Seas, and between the United States and Russia over NATO expansion and Russian actions in Ukraine, threaten to make the UN Security Council—where all three countries can veto resolutions as permanent members—as dysfunctional as it was during the Cold War.
Rudd adds that as terrorism spreads around the world, becoming the top security priority for many countries, the United Nations has failed to adequately respond to, or even define, the problem, which doesn’t easily fit within the UN’s state-centric view of the world. “[T]he UN has been unsuccessful in confronting the question of state-funded terrorist activity, in dealing with the political, economic, and social root causes of terrorism, and in agreeing and promulgating a global narrative on countering violent extremism,” he writes.
Most striking is Rudd’s assessment of the predicament national political leaders find themselves in, given that he was, not so long ago, one himself. These leaders, he writes, “are no longer, in substance, capable of delivering self-contained, national solutions to the problems faced by their people,” which “contributes to a related crisis of legitimacy for the international institutions nation-states have constructed.”
This crisis of legitimacy has direct bearing on the future of the United Nations. Countries, Rudd writes, are increasingly split between “globalists” and “localists,” particularly amid feeble economic growth following the 2008 financial crisis:
This, in turn, is beginning to create a fertile political space for more extreme political movements, either of the far left or the far right, driven by populist protest against the broad, globalizing consensus of the mainstream political center that has by and large prevailed over the last few decades.
Protectionist sympathies are therefore on the rise, as are xenophobic approaches to migration and, more broadly, a political impetus to “throw up the walls” against the forces of continuing globalization. This, in turn, is breeding new nationalist and mercantilist movements, which vilify not only their own governments, but also the regional and global institutions of which their governments are members and to which too much sovereignty, in their view, has already been ceded.
The net result is a fracturing and failure of national politics. We are seeing weakening national support for regional institutions such as the European Union. Global institutions such as the UN are seen as even more remote from local concerns.
On a daily basis, we hear reports of the United Nations succeeding with this or that, or failing to do this or that. But we rarely pause to consider what these successes and failures say about the relevance of the UN in the world today—and what the world would look like without it. Rudd’s report can ultimately be read as a plea for something pretty basic: to not take the United Nations for granted.
The UN should be given more power. The UN is a great idea, but it is just so powerless that is doomed to fail in its most important goals of preventing war and other atrocities.
There are also problems where just one country voting "no" is enough to block what everyone else wants. See: every time Russia says no when the U.S. says yes and the U.S. says no when Russia says yes, because reasons.
It’s not clear the organization can effectively confront—or even survive—today’s challenges.
What if the United Nations didn’t exist? It’s a question easily answered, because for nearly all of human history, it didn’t. History “teaches us that order in international relations is the exception, rather than the rule,” Kevin Rudd, the former Australian prime minister, writes in a new report on the uncertain future of the UN. “Since the rise of the modern nation-state, both prior to and following the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, disorder has been the dominant characteristic of inter-state relations.” We tend to think of the United Nations as just another part of the global furniture. But it’s actually a recent addition.
Over the last 500 years, Rudd notes, “there have been four major efforts in Europe to construct order after periods of sustained carnage”: in 1648, after the Thirty Years’ and Eighty Years’ wars; in 1815, after the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars; in 1919, after World War I; and in 1945, after World War II. “The first three of these ‘orders’ have had, at best, patchy records of success. The jury is still out on the fourth.”
RELATED STORY
The Thucydides Trap: Are the U.S. and China Headed for War?
That fourth attempt—the United Nations—is now in a period of transition as the race for the organization’s top job nears its end. It’s the most important election nobody’s ever heard of, and hinges on secret straw polls at the Security Council that could yield a result within the month. Rudd, whose name was once mentioned among the potential contenders to replace Ban Ki-moon as secretary-general, is not in the mix. (Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull refused to nominate him.) But the study he released this week as chair of the Independent Commission on Multilateralism is a guide to the global forces that will confront whoever takes the job—including the possibility that the United Nations itself, though it’s unlikely to collapse anytime soon, might gradually atrophy to the point of irrelevance.
The concept of entropy in international relations is instructive here, Rudd writes: “Under this argument, any international order, once established, is immediately subject to the natural processes of decline and decay, ultimately resulting in a return to disorder.”
There is “growing evidence of nation-states walking around the UN to solve major problems and then perhaps coming back to the UN when it’s all done as some sort of diplomatic afterthought,” Rudd told me. The United Nations continues to establish rules for how people and states should conduct themselves in the world. “The problem is, if you simply set norms and don’t do anything about the execution of those norms, as the international agency given that function back under the charter of 1945, then you start to lose complete relevance over time.”
“We are facing the biggest set of external changes and challenges to the global order since 1991.”
I asked Rudd whether the remaining secretary-general candidates were advocating the kinds of reforms he’d like implemented at the United Nations. “I ... understand that in a competitive selection process such as this, many candidates are going to choose to be publicly diplomatic about the sort of problems the UN faces,” he responded. Presumably he himself can be less diplomatic, now that he is no longer auditioning to be the world’s chief diplomat.
“We are facing the biggest set of external changes and challenges to the global order since 1991,” following the fall of the Soviet Union, Rudd told me. “Over the last 25 years, we haven’t seen anything comparable to the current state of great-power relations. We haven’t seen anything comparable to the current intensity of the globalization process. We haven’t seen anything comparable to the emergence, for example, of terrorism as a mainstream threat to many societies across the world. These are new phenomen[a]. Each age has had its own new phenomenon. But in a quarter of a century, which is a long time [for] an institution that only has a 70-year history, it’s a set of circumstances which should cause us to act.”
Rudd’s report includes numerous prescriptions for reinventing the institution, from striking a new international agreement on resettling refugees to more rigorously measuring the results of UN initiatives. The United Nations, Rudd told me, is much better at reacting to crises than anticipating and preventing them. He proposes investing in a policy-planning staff that can analyze global trends several years into the future, and in what he calls “preventive diplomacy.” As an example, he cited the UN’s appointment in 2013 of the former president of East Timor, Jose Ramos-Horta, as a special representative to the West African nation of Guinea-Bissau, which had just experienced a military coup; within roughly a year, Ramos-Horta had helped forge enough political consensus for elections to be held. Prevention could also mean, for instance, prepositioning food aid in countries at the earliest warnings of famine, or tracking unemployment patterns to predict where violent extremism could emerge.
But it’s Rudd’s diagnosis of what’s ailing the United Nations that is particularly notable. The rise of non-state actors such as terrorist groups, intensifying rivalries between the United States and Russia and China, and a fierce backlash against globalization are all challenging the “assumption of recent decades that the dynamics of greater global integration were somehow unstoppable,” he writes.
The United Nations “is the worst system of international governance except for all the others.”
This is an urgent problem, Rudd argues in the report, because despite its many failings, the United Nations “is the worst system of international governance except for all the others.” Among other things, he writes, the UN has helped avert another world war; played a role in drastically reducing the share of the global population living in extreme poverty; created a system of dispute-settlement institutions to counteract the “long and malignant history of territorial and trade disputes” sparking international conflict; staved off the “all-out proliferation of nuclear weapons” that looked so likely in the early 1960s; and provided humanitarian relief to vulnerable populations that, before the advent of the UN, were often “simply left to die.”
But recent years have brought worrying signs of weakness, according to Rudd. The UN wasn’t a participant in international talks to restrict Iran’s nuclear program, he points out, even though one of its institutions, the International Atomic Energy Agency, was tasked with helping implement the resulting agreement. The UN has been similarly absent from efforts to address other major security challenges like the war in Ukraine and the acceleration of North Korea’s nuclear program. It sluggishly responded to the Ebola epidemic in West Africa, and has bungled the refugee crisis in the Middle East and Europe. And it has failed to prevent mass atrocities and resolve chronic conflict in countries like South Sudan and Syria. The UN’s role in spreading a cholera epidemic in Haiti through the unsanitary practices of its peacekeepers—a role the organization only recently acknowledged, after years of denials—has further tarnished the institution’s image.
Meanwhile, escalating tensions between the United States and China over cyberspace and territorial disputes in the East and South China Seas, and between the United States and Russia over NATO expansion and Russian actions in Ukraine, threaten to make the UN Security Council—where all three countries can veto resolutions as permanent members—as dysfunctional as it was during the Cold War.
Rudd adds that as terrorism spreads around the world, becoming the top security priority for many countries, the United Nations has failed to adequately respond to, or even define, the problem, which doesn’t easily fit within the UN’s state-centric view of the world. “[T]he UN has been unsuccessful in confronting the question of state-funded terrorist activity, in dealing with the political, economic, and social root causes of terrorism, and in agreeing and promulgating a global narrative on countering violent extremism,” he writes.
Most striking is Rudd’s assessment of the predicament national political leaders find themselves in, given that he was, not so long ago, one himself. These leaders, he writes, “are no longer, in substance, capable of delivering self-contained, national solutions to the problems faced by their people,” which “contributes to a related crisis of legitimacy for the international institutions nation-states have constructed.”
This crisis of legitimacy has direct bearing on the future of the United Nations. Countries, Rudd writes, are increasingly split between “globalists” and “localists,” particularly amid feeble economic growth following the 2008 financial crisis:
This, in turn, is beginning to create a fertile political space for more extreme political movements, either of the far left or the far right, driven by populist protest against the broad, globalizing consensus of the mainstream political center that has by and large prevailed over the last few decades.
Protectionist sympathies are therefore on the rise, as are xenophobic approaches to migration and, more broadly, a political impetus to “throw up the walls” against the forces of continuing globalization. This, in turn, is breeding new nationalist and mercantilist movements, which vilify not only their own governments, but also the regional and global institutions of which their governments are members and to which too much sovereignty, in their view, has already been ceded.
The net result is a fracturing and failure of national politics. We are seeing weakening national support for regional institutions such as the European Union. Global institutions such as the UN are seen as even more remote from local concerns.
On a daily basis, we hear reports of the United Nations succeeding with this or that, or failing to do this or that. But we rarely pause to consider what these successes and failures say about the relevance of the UN in the world today—and what the world would look like without it. Rudd’s report can ultimately be read as a plea for something pretty basic: to not take the United Nations for granted.
The UN should be given more power. The UN is a great idea, but it is just so powerless that is doomed to fail in its most important goals of preventing war and other atrocities.
There are also problems where just one country voting "no" is enough to block what everyone else wants. See: every time Russia says no when the U.S. says yes and the U.S. says no when Russia says yes, because reasons.
It doesn't help that only 2 of the permanent council members are actually great powers any more. Russia, France, and Britain punch way above their weight, while China and the US are about right. China being the PRC and not the ROC as originally intended basically puts two dictatorships on the permanent council, leaving the US and two lightweights to counter balance them.
I've discussed the issue with Iron_Captain before with regards to threat many Russians believe NATO poses to the Motherland. From what I recall, it essentially boiled down to the fact that Russia has limited ways of exercising its influence in the world, the two primary means being energy reliance and military strength.With its energy exports flagging, and no means of force extension (aircraft carriers and suchlike) available, Russia is essentially limited to one means of influencing affairs outside of its borders.
With NATO being a massive defensive alliance, every single nation who joins NATO is effectively removed from Russia's influence, because it cannot ever hope to match the sum of the parts. With a declining birth rate and limited industry, it also cannot hope to do so in the future. This means every country which joins NATO is not only removed from Russia's influence for the immediate future, but the foreseeable future as well.
'So what?' say most Westerners. 'They shouldn't be thinking about invading people anyway! Goddamn authoritarian Russkis, the more people out from under their boot, the better!'
If you take the perspective the West are the 'Good guys' and the concept of Russia ever using military force is unacceptable (as most liberal westerners will do), this is completely true and accurate. In Russia however, neither of these assumptions often hold true.
As far as Russia is concerned, the rest of the world is out to get it. The invasion of foreign forces to support the Whites in the civil war, followed by Hitler, followed by the Cold War mean that from the perspective of many Russians, the West is not this benign morally 'good' power, but rather a two faced entity that bites chunks off of whatever other powers exist whenever it gets the chance whilst congratulating itself on how righteous it is. China has a similar perspective, as do a number of other non-western countries.
And frankly, there is something to that. We've stopped marching armies around so much, but that's only because we've found economic and diplomatic pressure more effective and less expensive.
What this means for Russia is that every country which joins NATO is a further limitation on Russia's power and ability to influence affairs around it. This in turn raises the prospect that one day, every country around Russia would be part of NATO. And that terrifies Russia. It would make Russia an economically backward state with no ability to influence anything outside of its borders whatsoever.
What's more, that kind of cohesion would present a direct security risk. Right now, NATO isn't fagged about much, but what if some day it decides to tell Russia, 'Hey, stop making so many carbon emissions/building so many nukes/insert cause of choice here, or we'll cut you off from the world'? Russia would be powerless, because to cross that entity would destroy Russia economically (and possibly militarily). You can say, Ah, we'd never do that', but Russia doesn't think that for a second.
It also looks at all the people saying, 'How dare they invade Crimea/Georgia/whatever state it is this half-decade, what evil Russians' and the sanctions that ensue and says to itself, 'Hang on a minute. You guys were just in Iraq/Afghanistan/Libya for equally gakky self-interested reasons! We didn't try and screw over YOUR economies because of that! Why are you doing it to us?!' It just confirms the view that Russia is to be singled out for special persecution, feeding into the paranoia towards the West mentioned above. And again, there's more than a hint of truth about that.
I dislike Russia's government. I disapprove of their games in Crimea. But I'm also aware that we are not necessarily always the 'good guys' either. I personally think Russia is daft for trying to play the 20th century by the 19th century handbook, and it will screw them over in the end. But at the same time, I can comprehend precisely why they're still using that handbook, and I can't say it's entirely illogical.
Presuming that anyone criticizing one country for something thinks there is a "good guy" seems to be a red herring that is constantly thrown out whenever this subject comes up. It's almost as pedantic as shifting the debate to argue who did what rather than addressing the basic criticism of "this is wrong." Hypocrisy is hypocrisy, and there's plenty of it going around so feel free to call it out, but it citing it doesn't address the complaint being made.
LordofHats wrote: Presuming that anyone criticizing one country for something thinks there is a "good guy" seems to be a red herring that is constantly thrown out whenever this subject comes up. It's almost as pedantic as shifting the debate to argue who did what rather than addressing the basic criticism of "this is wrong." Hypocrisy is hypocrisy, and there's plenty of it going around so feel free to call it out, but it citing it doesn't address the complaint being made.
I'm not certain if this is addressed to me or not? Because if so, I'm afraid I'm failing to comprehend your point in relation to mine. My point was fairly explicitly linked to the fact that the West's general perception of themselves as the 'good guys' means that when considering the situation, they automatically assume Russia should have nothing to fear from NATO expansion, because the West being 'good' would never seek to use that power/leverage in a disadvantageous way against Russia.
The hypocrisy involved in that position is merely tangential, and simply pointed out as evidence to indicate why Russians might not perceive the West to be the 'good guys'. It's certainly not the thrust of what I'm saying.
The simple situation here is that Russia and the West have never been friends, we have been allies of convenience. We have fought together against arguably greater enemies. But we have never been friends. There is no reason to trust Russia, nor should the West concern ourselves with the Russians trusting us. We fought in the Crimea to secure the Ottomans (not really worthwhile) we fought the reds not simply because "why not" but because the communists were a clear and obvious enemy to civilization. It should not be a surprise that there were no countries that willingly embraced communism, they all had it imposed on them. So the cold war was worth fighting.
Ketara wrote: Because if so, I'm afraid I'm failing to comprehend your point in relation to mine. My point was fairly explicitly linked to the fact that the West's general perception of themselves as the 'good guys' means that when considering the situation, they automatically assume Russia should have nothing to fear from NATO expansion, because the West being 'good' would never seek to use that power/leverage in a disadvantageous way against Russia.
And I'm saying it doesn't really matter. I haven't seen any argument tantamount to "Russia is Russia, and Russia is bad." People are pointing out actual criticisms, like a frequency of dead opposition journalists, or the completely unveiled Russian involvement in the Ukraine conflict. A common response not just in this thread but many threads has been pedantic whataboutism fused with the red herring of "stop assuming you're the good guys." While modern Russia may lack this perception and see NATO as a threat, no one is required to agree with that assessment, especially not when "if NATO is a threat to Russia, it is because Russia has made it so" is so easy to reach with regards to events of the very recent past. I.E. Talking about perspectives goes no where. It's a pointless tangent from the actual discussion at hand.
konst80hummel wrote: Well Chile comes to mind.. They elected a communist President and then CIA staged a coup and planted Pinochet...
Know your facts please...
yeah, sure they did, it was a good clean and honest election, really it was..but that dastardly CIA
Ketara wrote: Because if so, I'm afraid I'm failing to comprehend your point in relation to mine. My point was fairly explicitly linked to the fact that the West's general perception of themselves as the 'good guys' means that when considering the situation, they automatically assume Russia should have nothing to fear from NATO expansion, because the West being 'good' would never seek to use that power/leverage in a disadvantageous way against Russia.
And I'm saying it doesn't really matter. I haven't seen any argument tantamount to "Russia is Russia, and Russia is bad." People are pointing out actual criticisms, like a frequency of dead opposition journalists, or the completely unveiled Russian involvement in the Ukraine conflict. A common response not just in this thread but many threads has been pedantic whataboutism fused with the red herring of "stop assuming you're the good guys." While modern Russia may lack this perception and see NATO as a threat, no one is required to agree with that assessment, especially not when "if NATO is a threat to Russia, it is because Russia has made it so" is so easy to reach with regards to events of the very recent past. I.E. Talking about perspectives goes no where. It's a pointless tangent from the actual discussion at hand.
The simple fact is that Russia invaded Ukraine, it attacked Georgia, neither of those countries attacked Russia.
Ketara wrote: Because if so, I'm afraid I'm failing to comprehend your point in relation to mine. My point was fairly explicitly linked to the fact that the West's general perception of themselves as the 'good guys' means that when considering the situation, they automatically assume Russia should have nothing to fear from NATO expansion, because the West being 'good' would never seek to use that power/leverage in a disadvantageous way against Russia.
And I'm saying it doesn't really matter. I haven't seen any argument tantamount to "Russia is Russia, and Russia is bad."
Perhaps not. But there's plenty of 'NATO is essentially defensive, therefore Russia has nothing to fear and no reason/motivation for invading other countries other than the fact that their country is ruled by an evil dictator'. Which isn't quite a holistic snapshot of the situation.
While modern Russia may lack this perception and see NATO as a threat, no one is required to agree with that assessment, especially not when "if NATO is a threat to Russia, it is because Russia has made it so" is so easy to reach with regards to events of the very recent past. I.E. Talking about perspectives goes no where. It's a pointless tangent from the actual discussion at hand.
I'd be more inclined to say that claiming 'no-one is required to agree with Russia's assessment' is a very good way of shutting down all discussion. Just because one is not required to agree with it does not mean that one should not comprehend it. Discussing Russia's perspective on things is a very legitimate subject of discussion when the topic is the necessity of NATO (given that NATO was formed to be a bulwark against Soviet expansionism). The necessity of NATO is intrinsically tied into Russia's willingness to come to terms with the West.
That being a given, discussion of what impediments there might be to that end are interesting points of conversation. You are welcome to disagree, but you'll have to forgive me if I and anyone else so inclined proceed to discuss the topic anyway.
I've discussed the issue with Iron_Captain before with regards to threat many Russians believe NATO poses to the Motherland. From what I recall, it essentially boiled down to the fact that Russia has limited ways of exercising its influence in the world, the two primary means being energy reliance and military strength.With its energy exports flagging, and no means of force extension (aircraft carriers and suchlike) available, Russia is essentially limited to one means of influencing affairs outside of its borders.
With NATO being a massive defensive alliance, every single nation who joins NATO is effectively removed from Russia's influence, because it cannot ever hope to match the sum of the parts. With a declining birth rate and limited industry, it also cannot hope to do so in the future. This means every country which joins NATO is not only removed from Russia's influence for the immediate future, but the foreseeable future as well.
'So what?' say most Westerners. 'They shouldn't be thinking about invading people anyway! Goddamn authoritarian Russkis, the more people out from under their boot, the better!'
If you take the perspective the West are the 'Good guys' and the concept of Russia ever using military force is unacceptable (as most liberal westerners will do), this is completely true and accurate. In Russia however, neither of these assumptions often hold true.
As far as Russia is concerned, the rest of the world is out to get it. The invasion of foreign forces to support the Whites in the civil war, followed by Hitler, followed by the Cold War mean that from the perspective of many Russians, the West is not this benign morally 'good' power, but rather a two faced entity that bites chunks off of whatever other powers exist whenever it gets the chance whilst congratulating itself on how righteous it is. China has a similar perspective, as do a number of other non-western countries.
And frankly, there is something to that. We've stopped marching armies around so much, but that's only because we've found economic and diplomatic pressure more effective and less expensive.
What this means for Russia is that every country which joins NATO is a further limitation on Russia's power and ability to influence affairs around it. This in turn raises the prospect that one day, every country around Russia would be part of NATO. And that terrifies Russia. It would make Russia an economically backward state with no ability to influence anything outside of its borders whatsoever.
What's more, that kind of cohesion would present a direct security risk. Right now, NATO isn't fagged about much, but what if some day it decides to tell Russia, 'Hey, stop making so many carbon emissions/building so many nukes/insert cause of choice here, or we'll cut you off from the world'? Russia would be powerless, because to cross that entity would destroy Russia economically (and possibly militarily). You can say, Ah, we'd never do that', but Russia doesn't think that for a second.
It also looks at all the people saying, 'How dare they invade Crimea/Georgia/whatever state it is this half-decade, what evil Russians' and the sanctions that ensue and says to itself, 'Hang on a minute. You guys were just in Iraq/Afghanistan/Libya for equally gakky self-interested reasons! We didn't try and screw over YOUR economies because of that! Why are you doing it to us?!' It just confirms the view that Russia is to be singled out for special persecution, feeding into the paranoia towards the West mentioned above. And again, there's more than a hint of truth about that.
I dislike Russia's government. I disapprove of their games in Crimea. But I'm also aware that we are not necessarily always the 'good guys' either. I personally think Russia is daft for trying to play the 20th century by the 19th century handbook, and it will screw them over in the end. But at the same time, I can comprehend precisely why they're still using that handbook, and I can't say it's entirely illogical.
In many ways, Russia is facing the exact same problem the US is facing: political inertia. Your line near the end "Russia is daft for trying to play the 20th century by the 19th century handbook," is particularly apt, because we're actually in the 21st century now. Russia has the capacity to become a truly great power again by reinventing itself (I'm not saying that would be easy: it would be hard, take time, and a lot of work, but it can be done), but it's stuck with leaders acting like it's still the 1980s, with no real eye to the future other than preserving their own immediate self interests. It's the same reason why the US is slowly sliding down the drain, because our own leaders are refusing to adapt to the modern world.
konst80hummel wrote: Well Chile comes to mind.. They elected a communist President and then CIA staged a coup and planted Pinochet... Know your facts please...
Guatemala, or at least that is what the CIA claimed when they orchestrated the overthrow of Arbenz and install their new ruler. Of course the benefit derived by the United Fruit Company was completely unrelated.
On the other hand, if it weren't for this action, a doctor called Ernesto Guevara may not have met a Cuban exile called Fidel Castro. So it would seem that history had the last laugh rather than the CIA.
Ketara wrote: I'd be more inclined to say that claiming 'no-one is required to agree with Russia's assessment' is a very good way of shutting down all discussion. Just because one is not required to agree with it does not mean that one should not comprehend it.
Listen to anything the Russian government has ever said about NATO, and it's kind of obvious what they think. The Russia outlook isn't that cryptic.
I'm not talking about just talking about Russia's perspective. I'm talking about propping it up as a straw man in regards to criticism of Russian foreign policy. Waning influence is a piss poor pretext for tearing a country apart, no matter who is doing the tearing. Placing the Russian perspective in a position of primacy isn't going to make that criticism go away. It's not even going to answer it. It's interesting, and enlightening, but at the end of the day the criticism remains. I think you're assuming a lack of comprehension when its more accurate to say the perspective was found unconvincing before Ukraine, and seems self-serving afterwards.
EDIT: I would also agree with Tannhauser42's assessment.
I've discussed the issue with Iron_Captain before with regards to threat many Russians believe NATO poses to the Motherland. From what I recall, it essentially boiled down to the fact that Russia has limited ways of exercising its influence in the world, the two primary means being energy reliance and military strength.With its energy exports flagging, and no means of force extension (aircraft carriers and suchlike) available, Russia is essentially limited to one means of influencing affairs outside of its borders.
With NATO being a massive defensive alliance, every single nation who joins NATO is effectively removed from Russia's influence, because it cannot ever hope to match the sum of the parts. With a declining birth rate and limited industry, it also cannot hope to do so in the future. This means every country which joins NATO is not only removed from Russia's influence for the immediate future, but the foreseeable future as well.
'So what?' say most Westerners. 'They shouldn't be thinking about invading people anyway! Goddamn authoritarian Russkis, the more people out from under their boot, the better!'
If you take the perspective the West are the 'Good guys' and the concept of Russia ever using military force is unacceptable (as most liberal westerners will do), this is completely true and accurate. In Russia however, neither of these assumptions often hold true.
As far as Russia is concerned, the rest of the world is out to get it. The invasion of foreign forces to support the Whites in the civil war, followed by Hitler, followed by the Cold War mean that from the perspective of many Russians, the West is not this benign morally 'good' power, but rather a two faced entity that bites chunks off of whatever other powers exist whenever it gets the chance whilst congratulating itself on how righteous it is. China has a similar perspective, as do a number of other non-western countries.
And frankly, there is something to that. We've stopped marching armies around so much, but that's only because we've found economic and diplomatic pressure more effective and less expensive.
What this means for Russia is that every country which joins NATO is a further limitation on Russia's power and ability to influence affairs around it. This in turn raises the prospect that one day, every country around Russia would be part of NATO. And that terrifies Russia. It would make Russia an economically backward state with no ability to influence anything outside of its borders whatsoever.
What's more, that kind of cohesion would present a direct security risk. Right now, NATO isn't fagged about much, but what if some day it decides to tell Russia, 'Hey, stop making so many carbon emissions/building so many nukes/insert cause of choice here, or we'll cut you off from the world'? Russia would be powerless, because to cross that entity would destroy Russia economically (and possibly militarily). You can say, Ah, we'd never do that', but Russia doesn't think that for a second.
It also looks at all the people saying, 'How dare they invade Crimea/Georgia/whatever state it is this half-decade, what evil Russians' and the sanctions that ensue and says to itself, 'Hang on a minute. You guys were just in Iraq/Afghanistan/Libya for equally gakky self-interested reasons! We didn't try and screw over YOUR economies because of that! Why are you doing it to us?!' It just confirms the view that Russia is to be singled out for special persecution, feeding into the paranoia towards the West mentioned above. And again, there's more than a hint of truth about that.
I dislike Russia's government. I disapprove of their games in Crimea. But I'm also aware that we are not necessarily always the 'good guys' either. I personally think Russia is daft for trying to play the 20th century by the 19th century handbook, and it will screw them over in the end. But at the same time, I can comprehend precisely why they're still using that handbook, and I can't say it's entirely illogical.
That is a very accurate assessment. You have a way with words that I totally lack, Ketara. Also, would you please be so kind as to send the Kremlin a copy of that 20th century handbook? Russia seems to have missed the update
If only Russia could look into other ways of staying relevant apart from military power. Russian science, literature and music are famous across the entire world. If Russia would turn itself around, that could form an excellent basis to develop the soft power needed to compete with the West. But alas, the military-industrial complex holds the entire nation in its stranglehold. Russia is a militaristic nation, and as long as it does not get rid of that mentality it will be powerless to turn itself around in a world where soldiers and militarism just aren't that relevant anymore. It is a vicious cycle really.
Ketara wrote: I'd be more inclined to say that claiming 'no-one is required to agree with Russia's assessment' is a very good way of shutting down all discussion. Just because one is not required to agree with it does not mean that one should not comprehend it.
Listen to anything the Russian government has ever said about NATO, and it's kind of obvious what they think. The Russia outlook isn't that cryptic.
I'm not talking about just talking about Russia's perspective. I'm talking about propping it up as a straw man in regards to criticism of Russian foreign policy. Waning influence is a piss poor pretext for tearing a country apart, no matter who is doing the tearing. Placing the Russian perspective in a position of primacy isn't going to make that criticism go away. It's not even going to answer it. It's interesting, and enlightening, but at the end of the day the criticism remains. I think you're assuming a lack of comprehension when its more accurate to say the perspective was found unconvincing before Ukraine, and seems self-serving afterwards.
And what good would continueing criticism do? Russia is already well-aware of Western criticisms. It serves only to drive an ever wider wig between our two worlds.
And what good would continueing criticism do? Russia is already well-aware of Western criticisms. It serves only to drive an ever wider wig between our two worlds.
"Don't criticize me or we'll only grow further apart" may be the worst defense against criticism ever conceived.
Listen to anything the Russian government has ever said about NATO, and it's kind of obvious what they think. The Russia outlook isn't that cryptic.
I'm not talking about just talking about Russia's perspective. I'm talking about propping it up as a straw man in regards to criticism of Russian foreign policy. Waning influence is a piss poor pretext for tearing a country apart, no matter who is doing the tearing. Placing the Russian perspective in a position of primacy isn't going to make that criticism go away. It's not even going to answer it. It's interesting, and enlightening, but at the end of the day the criticism remains. I think you're assuming a lack of comprehension when its more accurate to say the perspective was found unconvincing before Ukraine, and seems self-serving afterwards.
Frankly, judging by some of the posts in this very thread, comprehension of why Russia behaves the way it does isn't quite as widespread as you think. It takes a certain re-adjustment of world view and thought; whilst you may have done so, not everybody has done. For many people, it is still as simple as 'Russia are the bad guys because they invade people, and they invade people because they're the bad guys'.
Since this is a discussion thread on a toy soldier wargaming forum, placing any kind of perspective in any kind of position won't make anything go away. We're just a bunch of nerds in an OT forum.
That being said, as this is a discussion thread, once all angles are examined, we can sit here and pass our geeky judgement on what we think would help to rectify the situation, because clearly things aren't working out for the best as things stand.
Tannhauser42 wrote:
In many ways, Russia is facing the exact same problem the US is facing: political inertia. Your line near the end "Russia is daft for trying to play the 20th century by the 19th century handbook," is particularly apt, because we're actually in the 21st century now. Russia has the capacity to become a truly great power again by reinventing itself (I'm not saying that would be easy: it would be hard, take time, and a lot of work, but it can be done), but it's stuck with leaders acting like it's still the 1980s, with no real eye to the future other than preserving their own immediate self interests. It's the same reason why the US is slowly sliding down the drain, because our own leaders are refusing to adapt to the modern world.
That was a typo on my part, but very well spotted, and you're right, it is quite ironic.
If the 19th century's handbook (from a Euro-centric perspective) was colonialism, the promotion and primacy of national interests above all others, and gunboat diplomacy, what was the 20th century's handbook? It would appear to be the breaking down of sex, race and class barriers, a greater view of the social responsibilities of the state, the rise of financial colonialism, the exertion of soft power instead of military force when possible, an inclination towards promoting greater trade as a tool for economic prosperity, and the coming into existence of a scientifically minded culture which accepts advances and the scientific method of research as its creed.
From what little we've seen so far, the 21st century has seen the true rise of globalism in the West, with capitalism becoming more voracious than ever before in tandem. Economics has become the primary motivator of political priority (ideologies are regarded as last century for the most part), consumer culture has become vast, and the internet has opened up the connection of people, trade, finances and ideas in a way never before seen. We've also seen the rise in the West of limited warfare as a political popularity tool, whilst it wasn't entirely unheard of last century, the 'drive by bombings for ratings' our leaders so casually undertake are to a large extent a new feature. The new flows of information have also resulted in mass migration, as people with nothing realise how much people in other parts of the world have, and decide they'd like a bit of it themselves.
Iron_Captain wrote:
That is a very accurate assessment. You have a way with words that I totally lack, Ketara. Also, would you please be so kind as to send the Kremlin a copy of that 20th century handbook? Russia seems to have missed the update
If only Russia could look into other ways of staying relevant apart from military power. Russian science, literature and music are famous across the entire world. If Russia would turn itself around, that could form an excellent basis to develop the soft power needed to compete with the West.
But alas, the military-industrial complex holds the entire nation in its stranglehold. Russia is a militaristic nation, and as long as it does not get rid of that mentality it will be powerless to turn itself around in a world where soldiers and militarism just aren't that relevant anymore. It is a vicious cycle really.
In all seriousness, if anyone is capable of holding out the world, it's probably Russia. Why? Because in order to be able to run a state completely independently without severe hardship (like North Koreas food shortages), you only require two things: Military power and economic self-sufficiency. Tick those boxes, and nobody will dare violate your borders, and all material needs can be met internally.
Russia has such vast amounts of land and raw resources that for the most part, it actually doesn't need to bother with the outside world. We've applied more or less the worst sanctions we can, and what was the result? A downturn in the Russian economy, yes, but nothing capable of driving change or even severely affecting the lives of the majority of people there. We've cut them off because we disapprove of their actions, but all that's done is forced them to domestically redevelop the sectors that had begun to link into the global market somewhat (so in cheese imports, for example). Now? That's it. It's not going to get any worse in Russia as a result of our actions. Frankly, the Russian economy rebounded slightly after a period and then stablised. It's not as good as it was pre-sanction, but it's not really that much worse off in terms of living standards or material shortages.
The fact the world has become globalised in fact, has simply meant that for many goods, Russia just swapped to buying in India, China, and other places. The West is no longer the sole place to buy manufactured goods or move capital around abroad. Globalism has nullified Western sanctions, to a large extent, because the extent of Western economic primacy has eroded with it.
Putin took Crimea because it was an easy gain, and a key military asset that Russia was at risk of losing. Right here and now, Russia is a danger to anyone on their border not in NATO, because there is nothing left that the West can do beyond declare war. The links formed under Yeltsin and Putin's early years with the West have dissolved. So the question is, what can the West do? Should NATO actively push to recruit more countries, hem Russia in and then ignore it forthwith? Or should it try and re-establish those soft power links?
It's genuinely hard to say. The former effectively just isolates Russia indefinitely and leaves it to do as it will, the latter to try and rehabilitate/re-integrate it back.
konst80hummel wrote: Well Chile comes to mind.. They elected a communist President and then CIA staged a coup and planted Pinochet...
Know your facts please...
Guatemala, or at least that is what the CIA claimed when they orchestrated the overthrow of Arbenz and install their new ruler. Of course the benefit derived by the United Fruit Company was completely unrelated.
On the other hand, if it weren't for this action, a doctor called Ernesto Guevara may not have met a Cuban exile called Fidel Castro. So it would seem that history had the last laugh rather than the CIA.
Colombia and Peru also spring to mind, as well as the CIA backed attempted assassination of Chavez and re-ignition of the Venezuela-Colombia war that got aborted when the police nabbed the assassins.
Russia though is not exactly innocent in South America though, being one of the major backers of FARC over the years, as an example. Russia does not deal with terrorists indeed!
konst80hummel wrote: Well Chile comes to mind.. They elected a communist President and then CIA staged a coup and planted Pinochet... Know your facts please...
Guatemala, or at least that is what the CIA claimed when they orchestrated the overthrow of Arbenz and install their new ruler. Of course the benefit derived by the United Fruit Company was completely unrelated.
On the other hand, if it weren't for this action, a doctor called Ernesto Guevara may not have met a Cuban exile called Fidel Castro. So it would seem that history had the last laugh rather than the CIA.
Colombia and Peru also spring to mind, as well as the CIA backed attempted assassination of Chavez and re-ignition of the Venezuela-Colombia war that got aborted when the police nabbed the assassins.
Russia though is not exactly innocent in South America though, being one of the major backers of FARC over the years, as an example. Russia does not deal with terrorists indeed!
Hey, FARC ain't terrorists, they are freedom fighters fighting against the corrupt, bourgeois Columbian regime and American imperialists on behalf of the poor and opressed farmers of Columbia! ¡Viva la Revolución!
Hey, FARC ain't terrorists, they are freedom fighters fighting against the corrupt, bourgeois Colombian regime and American imperialists on behalf of the poor and oppressed farmers of Columbia! ¡Viva la Revolución!
Once upon a time, yes. But that time ended about 5 years into a 50-60 year civil war. After that they embraced keeping those farmers as slaves, working as enforces for the cartels, and murder. It's how a lot of revolutions die.
Hey, FARC ain't terrorists, they are freedom fighters fighting against the corrupt, bourgeois Colombian regime and American imperialists on behalf of the poor and oppressed farmers of Columbia! ¡Viva la Revolución!
Once upon a time, yes. But that time ended about 5 years into a 50-60 year civil war. After that they embraced keeping those farmers as slaves, working as enforces for the cartels, and murder. It's how a lot of revolutions die.
On the plus side, the end to that particular conflict is in sight. So yay for progress
I`d say, that NATO exsitsts ATM to make a profit for itself. It won`t go anywhere, and noone could bring it down, not the voters, if they desided to take it down, not any army, if it would try to stand against it.
Like everything big it`s here for the money, that comes out of wins/losses in major political games: wage a war here, make sure you place the right politicians there, have good economical deals someother place, get taxes to fight terrorism.
Is it needed in the 21st century? It is, for itself.
I have s trong belief, that we live in a world, where *rseholes run the whole show. And everyone tries to be a bigger *rsehole to their counterpart.
You can say - Russia is a threat, and Nato defends people from the " rabid bear". And the funny thing is the same thing is told in the other camp - " Nato is a threat and we must secure our borders from their bases, that circle us". Are both right or wrong?
Doesn`t matter, because "people", that want us to believe that load of gack make money.
