Why NATO is still exist?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Freakazoitt**

Russia was responsible too because Poland would be able to fight atleast twice as long have the Russians not stabbed us in the back and forced us to fight on two fronts.

One day or so more - will not change anything. Poland "stabbed back" Czechs during they were fighting against Germany. But people remember only things, that required by politics for their games.

Because thats how Russia works nowadays? You claim something is illegal and actually belongs to you and suddenly there are Russian soldiers everywhere.

If you taking about Crimea. 95% people choosed to join Russia. I was there years before. They don't even speak ukrainian, It happen during maidan's anarchic "govermnent" ruled. In fact, there was no legal government, And who responsibe for euromaidan? Maybe NATO again?

You just confirmed what I said before.

So why unpreapeared soviets should die to save their political enemies - Armiya Kraiowa?

**Howard A Treesong**

Yup, it's our fault that Russia helped Germany invade Poland. As our allies and allowed to take Berlin, it's also our fault that the red army went berserk through Eastern Europe and Germany mass raping every woman and girl they could get their hands on. Or do they deny that even happened now? I can't keep up with all this doublethink.

**Freakazoitt**

Yup, it's our fault that Russia helped Germany invade Poland.

Why Britain didn't actually participated that war? It promised to help Poland against German.

As our allies and allowed to take Berlin, it's also our fault that the red army went berserk through Eastern Europe and Germany mass raping every woman and girl they could get their hands on.

In 1939 Britain had enough power to crush Germany and save Europe from everything,
Mass raping? How it whould happen, when such things was considered crime in red army.

**Tyr13**

Just in case youre going to say that russioans didnt rape anyone: Both my grandmother and great aunt were raped in WW2. They told me. And trust me, they didnt lie. That was pretty obvious. No one can lie that well.

**Iron_Captain**

Vaktathi wrote:
Iron_Captain wrote:

No one mentioned a shadowy long term plan. It is a simple matter of geopolitics and conflicting interests. Russia and Western nations have for centuries had conflicting interests, just like all European nations had with each other. Because Russia was and is powerful, Western nations have often tried to keep Russia down and prevent it from becoming a threat to their own interests. The real problem started when the Western European nations all started this huge anti-Russian alliance called NATO. That turned it from just a part of the Great Game into The West vs Russia.
For the time when Russia was the USSR, had the most powerful land military in history, and had shown the willingness to use it against non-aggressive powers (Finland, Poland, etc) and used worldwide socialist revolution as a tool of state, yeah.

Now, that's not to say that the USSR wasn't also justified in some of its own fears, but the two sides squaring off like that, with such vast political and economics differences, was inevitable for that time.

In the last few decades however, NATO had been progressively becoming less and less of a militarily functional organization and Europe was disarming and focusing its gaze elsewhere, largely outside of Europe and away from Russia. NATO, as a threat to Russia, was becoming increasingly less significant. The Dutch were looking at dumping their tank arsenal entirely, and there are fewer Germans, French, and British in uniform now than at any point since the mid 1800's. The armies of Europe were withering away until the brakes got put on over the last year.

Russia, after 1991 did no longer see NATO as a threat. But this changed very radically with the illegal NATO attacks on Russia's ally Serbia, which proved that NATO was in fact very much a real threat to Russia and any other sovereign non-NATO nation in the world. Especially when also combined with all the other American invasions (for the record US=NATO in the eyes of most Russians) Invading and bombing sovereign states without legal basis tends to make others see you as a threat. Fact is that it is not only Russia who sees itself as a threat, China, Iran and many others do too. NATO and US conduct in the past decades has earned it a lot of enemies and dispelled any myths about NATO 'not being a threat'.

Vaktathi wrote:

Russia doesn't want economic integration or a world market, Russia wants to be self-sufficient and not rely on anyone else. Russia has always been self-sufficient. Russia may not export much, but it also imports little. Russia, in general, just wants to be left alone and have as little to do with foreigners as possible.
As Bastiat said, "When goods don't cross borders, armies will".

Autarky hasn't worked spectacularly well for any nation...ever. Ask the North Koreans how that's going for them. It didn't work for the USSR. Germany tried to use the exact same line of thinking (self sufficiency and reliance with as little to do with foreigners as possible) in the 1930's and 1940's and as the justification for the invasion of their neighbors to obtain Lebensraum, and that didn't work out for them. Japan too had much the same idea, and got the same results Germany did.

As for Exports, Russia does export a lot, it's just in resources. In fact, it's largely exports that have driven the Russian economy and recover since the late 90's, particularly energy exports. The Russian economy is critically dependent on the success of these exports. The problem is that these are products that lots of other nations can produce and that often have alternatives and the prices can collapse relatively easily.

Meanwhile, Russia has no economically viable producers of many consumer and industrial items, particularly technology items. Russia only just last month made its first commercially available computer with a domestically produced PC CPU, and it's a 200,000 Ruble ($4,000) machine, with significantly less processing power than Intel equivalents costing a small fraction of that, and still has to use foreign designed and produced components like video cards.

Autarky isn't any more realistic for Russia than it is anyone else, particularly if they want to stay on even par in terms of technology and standard of living. The USSR tried that, and it failed. North Korea has become the joke state of the world as a result of such a policy. The real effect of this policy is that China is gaining an increasing stake in the Russian economy to fuel her own boom and getting to play Loan Shark to the Russian state. This avoids have to deal with EU/NATO countries to the same extent, particularly in areas like finance, but China has been able to get terms out of agreements with Russia that France could only ever dream of.

Great powers and empires are not built on autarky, trade makes them powerful and rich.

It used to be constantly shifting power paradigms in the past, but that changed with NATO. Nonetheless, the past contains many examples of Western nations trying to keep Russia down to protect their own interests. The difference being that while in the past, Western European nations did so on their own and while also fighting each other, now they cooperate with each other against Russia.

Because, quite frankly, Russia has chosen not to remove the fears that created NATO in the first place. There had been suggestions of inviting Russia to join NATO by various different parties through the late 90's even as recently as 2010, even in places like Poland and Germany. The Russian government's envoy, Dmitry Rogozin, declined such an idea stating "Great powers don't join coalitions, they create coalitions. Russia considers itself a great power.". That's sort of the core of the issue. Russia wanted to be the top dog or not play, and Russia simply doesn't have the capability to be top dog with the other big kids, and it's not hard to see where problems are going to occur in that situation and why others may feel threatened.

That's not to say that Russia doesn't have it's own fears or some good reasons for those, but Russia actively, officially, and openly turned down the opportunity to change the fundamental nature of NATO because it couldn't be top dog. It effectively said "I don't need you, I'll create my own security partnership, with Blackjack and Hookers" when the subject of being included was brought up.

Now, for the present, Russia's takeover of Crimea was truly masterfully executed on an operational level, but the changing of national borders by military force (bloodless and marvelously coordinated though it was) in Europe by a major power is not something that had been done since the second world war and everyone had thought was a thing of the past, and has resulted in reinvigorating an otherwise withering NATO.

Maybe that is true. But Russia has always been a great empire since the Middle Ages, even without trade, and even though it has been invaded again and again and again and again, all of those invasions have been broken. Russians have always been warriors rather than traders. You can't just change such an element of culture that has become part of it for so many centuries. Russians are a proud and stubborn people too. They won't accept bowing down to the US (NATO) or China or anyone else. I think most Russians would rather stand alone and fight than to give up its independence and great power status (which is important for national pride). If that leads to confrontation, so be it, but Russia prefers to be left alone in peace.

Daemonhammer wrote:

Arguably you Russians did more damage to Poland during the war than the Germans (For example during the Warsaw uprising).

Don't you ever forget that it was the Soviets who saved you and your people from complete extermination in the German death camps. If the Red Army had not liberated you, Poland would today not exist.
Of course, this does not excuse Soviet crimes, but never forget that many Russians also gave their lifes for your freedom.

Ketara wrote:
Iron_Captain wrote:

Yes, NATO is a way of binding together the European countries, but under American leadership. Nothing gets done in NATO without US leadership, and while not every Western European NATO member may cooperate every time on every single issue, in general, they do cooperate and coordinate their actions with each other.

That depends. NATO Military action does tend to occur with American involvement, it is true. That is primarily the result of America providing the majority of the remote strike capabilities/support in NATO though, I would say. Primarily because barring defence of a NATO country (and none has ever been attacked) if America isn't on board with a military strike, it's quite difficult to make it happen.

But I'd separate that from 'American leadership'. God only knows, we all bicker like cats in a sack. We might occasionally do something to US interests (if it follows our own as well), but even then we don't quite 'follow' the US line. Differing nationalities and cultures tend to be an obstacle to that sort of thing.

I think British and Western European interests align with American interests more than ocasionally.

Ketara wrote:

Modern NATO has nothing to do with WW2. NATO accepts and actively looks for new members. All those new members who joined long after NATO was formed are next to Russia or even on former Russian territory. Most partnerships etc. also are with countries next to Russia. Claiming that is all coincidence is closing your eyes on purpose.

NATO itself was formed for two reasons. To bind European countries together to stop them warring against each other, and in fear of the Soviet threat (more commonly known as 'Stalin with 'da bomb )

As others have pointed out though, the reason that many nations next to Russia or made up from the remnants of the Union are keen on NATO, is because they see it as a way out from Russian influence. Please allow me to extrapolate.

If you were the leader of a country bordering Russia right now, you'd see the Russian Premier tightening his grip on power. You'd see him ramping up military spending, and you'd see him beginning to interfere militarily along the borders. To any country, this constitutes a potential threat, and as it's leader, you are responsible for lessening it. So what do you do? Your country is no match for Russia, economically or militarily. Your economy likely has heavy trade links with Russia.

You essentially have three options:-

-You stay as quiet as possible, and hope no-one notices you.
-You throw in your lot with Russia wholeheartedly.
-You try and join the EU/NATO, because the EU gives economic links to supplement or replace those of Russia, and NATO wards off any potential Russian military meddling/invasion.

Looking at it logically, you can try option 1. If things are generally quiet, there's no harm in maintaining the status quo, but it's a short termist policy at best. You can throw in your lot with Russia, and do whatever they say, but this likely means being expected to jump when the Russian Premier says so. You might be fine, but then again, you might end up with the Russians effectively making your foreign and economic policy for you. It's a heavy gamble for an independent nation. The third option meanwhile, does not require much in the way of input (most NATO members haven't met their 2% target in years), but allows you to draw upon the military might of a bloc of countries. That allows your run your own military spending down. The economic options opened up by the European Common Market are phenomenal, and far exceed what Russia can offer.

The cost meanwhile, is that you integrate a chunk of your armed forces along NATO lines, and meet EU directions on freedom of speech and suchlike. If you're of a naturally dictatorial type, that might be too high a price for you. But even if you are, you wouldn't be looking to throw in with Russia completely anyway, but rather just take the first option. But that's just you. Assuming that one of your successors is less inclined that way, the odds are that logically, the EU/NATO offer the best prospects.NATO countries also don't war against each other, so you have security of borders that an alliance with Russia might not give you.

The result has been that nation after nation has thrown their hat into the NATO/EU rings. Realpolitik usually dictates the action of nations, and those two organisations tend to offer the maximum possible positive outcomes, with the fewest negatives. It's not necessarily a case, I don't think, of NATO or the EU going, 'Let's encircle Russia', so much as it is countries asking to join, and then being granted access. NATO doesn't actively encourage people to come and join it, by pure virtue of the fact that it doesn't have to. It is not unreasonable to suggest that joining it is the most logical option for most countries who could, and so they have done so.

True, and I understand the position of countries like the Baltic states, but NATO did not have to accept their demands for joining. NATO should have been more sensible towards Russian national interests.
I think it is a vicious circle. Past events have caused the Baltic states to be hostile towards Russia, which causes them to join NATO, which causes modern Russia to be hostile to the Baltic States, which reinforces the image that the Baltic States need NATO to protect against Russia.
I think joining NATO was a bad idea for those countries, because it did not break the vicious circle. If you compare them to Belarus and Kazakhstan for example, you see that those countries have had no major troubles with Russia but manage to maintain a balance between the West and Russia. If the Baltic states had done the same and had not made an enemy out of the Russian Federation, they would not have to feel as threatened as they do now. Basically, there is a 4th option to the three you have listed, which I think is the best for the former Soviet states.

Ketara wrote:

It doesn't matter whether NATO as an organisation was involved. NATO as an organisation in itself is not important because it has no power or influence or whatever of itself. What matters is the NATO states, because their cooperation also takes place outside of what is officially NATO. Therefore distinguising between conflicts that had NATO as organisation involved and conflicts that involved a coalition of NATO states is useless nitpicking, because both are functionally the same.

Okay. But if that is the case, then you must judge the co-operation between foreign nations individually. You cannot say that NATO is encircling Russia, and then say that the actions of NATO are irrelevant in and of itself, but it is rather the member states that should be paid attention to. The two are mutually exclusive, I think, to the point you are trying to make.

I think not, because NATO is made up of its member states, it has no life outside of its member states. When I say NATO is encircling Russia, I am effectively saying NATO member states are encircling Russia. It is the same thing.

**SilverMK2**

Wow, glad I did some painting rather than waste my time in this thread...

**Iron_Captain**

SilverMK2 wrote:
Wow, glad I did some painting rather than waste my time in this thread...

Yet you still can't resist coming back!
That is the same with me. I know I am wasting my time, but it is so addicting I keep coming back regardless.

**LordofHats**

I think it is a vicious circle. Past events have caused the Baltic states to be hostile towards Russia, which causes them to join NATO, which causes modern Russia to be hostile to the Baltic States, which reinforces the image that the Baltic States need NATO to protect against Russia.

This only works if we assume Russia hasn't had hostile relations with the Baltic since before NATO.

I get the sense Russia teaches very poor history in this thread so hint; Russia has been bullying it's neighbors for forever. The Baltic states, have been weary of and fearful of Russian aggression and hegemony for centuries because Russia was always trying to invade them. It is not a new fear. It is a very old one, NATO simply being the latest iteration of the means by which Russia's neighbors desperately seek to protect themselves from a power that has historically, done little but try to ravage them.

Forgive if I find Russia's faint cries of victimhood hyperbolic when the whole reason Eastern Europe is always lining up against them is because they keep trying to invade Eastern Europe

**Freakazoitt**

Iron_Captain wrote:since the Middle Ages, even without trade, and even though it has been invaded again and again and again and again, all of those invasions have been broken.

After mongols the only who not failed invasion is rzeczpospolita in 1610. POLAND STRONG, haha.

SilverMK2 wrote:Wow, glad I did some painting rather than waste my time in this thread...

LOL you said that before but still there.

Ketara wrote: Unless Russia intends on invading other countries and forcing borders, why does it need to fear 'encirclement'? The obvious thing for Russia to do would be to join NATO itself, but as has been said elsewhere, it didn't want to do that.

It is impossible by both NATO and Russia.

The existence of nuclear weaponry has more or less put paid to the idea of anyone ever invading Russia again. So that forces me to the logical conclusion that the reason Russia gets upset at countries joining NATO, is because it would like to meddle in or subsume those countries militarily in pursuit of its own agenda, but now feels it cannot do so. If you have a third option I'm not seeing here though, please feel free to voice it.

There are two type of countries: NATO and others. And NATO making a lot of wars on "others", turning those countries into anarchic terrorists (Iraq for example). I don't get how it helps anyone but NATO itself, So, that's why every next country joining NATO considered by "others" as a new threat.

I think not, because NATO is made up of its member states, it has no life outside of its member states. When I say NATO is encircling Russia, I am effectively saying NATO member states are encircling Russia. It is the same thing.

And if Russia will finally encircelled, there will be only one superpower - USA and it's satellites (NATO).

(do not tell them, there is China too

let's surprise them

)

**Ketara**

Iron_Captain wrote:
True, and I understand the position of countries like the Baltic states, but NATO did not have to accept their demands for joining. NATO should have been more sensible towards Russian national interests.

I fear I might be restating myself here, but NATO is a defensive alliance. Unless Russia intends on invading other countries and forcing borders, why does it need to fear 'encirclement'? The obvious thing for Russia to do would be to join NATO itself, but as has been said elsewhere, it didn't want to do that. Which is fine. You say yourself Russia just wants to be left alone. Which is fine also.

But why is it exactly, that the foreign relations of powers completely separate to Russia, need to take Russia into account? Surely if Russia is a peaceful nation with no plans to invade anyone, NATO is absolutely no threat. I mean, just to pull into your next statement,

I think it is a vicious circle. Past events have caused the Baltic states to be hostile towards Russia, which causes them to join NATO, which causes modern Russia to be hostile to the Baltic States,

Why does a number of Baltic states joining NATO make modern Russia hostile to them? If Russia has no plans to meddle in those countries affairs, surely NATO is irrelevant? What organisations another country chooses to be part of is not a reason to be hostile or peaceful. Nobody in the West gets hostile towards other countries because they're joining this trade block Russia is trying to set up, the same way we wouldn't be hostile to the Phillipines if they concluded a defensive treaty with Malaysia.

There are only two possible logical reasons a country could fear/have issues with two foreign powers concluding a defensive alliance, primarily:-

-That they fear the two new allies will combine to attack them, &
-That they planned to attack one of the powers themselves, but are unable to in the face of the new combination.

The existence of nuclear weaponry has more or less put paid to the idea of anyone ever invading Russia again. So that forces me to the logical conclusion that the reason Russia gets upset at countries joining NATO, is because it would like to meddle in or subsume those countries militarily in pursuit of its own agenda, but now feels it cannot do so. If you have a third option I'm not seeing here though, please feel free to voice it.

If the Baltic states had done the same and had not made an enemy out of the Russian Federation, they would not have to feel as threatened as they do now. Basically, there is a 4th option to the three you have listed, which I think is the best for the former Soviet states.

I remember some considerable signs of strain in Belarus over the whole Ukraine affair, with regards to Belarus feeling that if they step out of line with Russia, Russia will cause the same problems for them. So whilst they'd rather have option number 1, Putin is holding a club and gesturing menacingly towards number 2. That was simply my impression of the whole thing though, which could be wrong (I haven't read too far into it).

Iron_Captain wrote:
I think not, because NATO is made up of its member states, it has no life outside of its member states. When I say NATO is encircling Russia, I am effectively saying NATO member states are encircling Russia. It is the same thing.

If you'll pardon the comparison (God only knows we've seen enough bad Nazi comparisons in here), I see some mild parallels with regards to how Germany felt pre-WW1 with regards to encirclement. With Germany, it was because they wanted their 'place in the sun' and feared that the rise of other powers would prevent them meddling militarily as they liked. That lends further weight (in my eyes) to my analysis above. If you disagree though, I would be interested to hear as to why.

**Kanluwen**

It's not often that I wish certain posters would just go away and never come back, but man...I'm really feeling that today.

**LordofHats**

Ketara wrote:
Unless Russia intends on invading other countries and forcing borders, why does it need to fear 'encirclement'?

But- But Ketara! if all of Russia's neighbors join NATO they won't have any neighbors to bully anymore! And if Russia can't kick some poor developing state in the groin, how will all the other big boy countries know that Russia is super duper serial?

**Kanluwen**

LordofHats wrote:
Ketara wrote:
Unless Russia intends on invading other countries and forcing borders, why does it need to fear 'encirclement'?

But- But Ketara! if all of Russia's neighbors join NATO they won't have any neighbors to bully anymore! And if Russia can't kick some poor developing state in the groin, how will all the other big boy countries know that Russia is super duper serial?

They could wear a big hat and a cape.

That's how I let everyone else know that I'm in charge.

**LordofHats**

Kanluwen wrote:

They could wear a big hat and a cape.

That's how I let everyone else know that I'm in charge.

Hats approves and respects you. It's dangerous to go alone, take this;

**Ustrello**

Kanluwen wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
Ketara wrote:
Unless Russia intends on invading other countries and forcing borders, why does it need to fear 'encirclement'?

But- But Ketara! if all of Russia's neighbors join NATO they won't have any neighbors to bully anymore! And if Russia can't kick some poor developing state in the groin, how will all the other big boy countries know that Russia is super duper serial?

They could wear a big hat and a cape.

That's how I let everyone else know that I'm in charge.

Now I am imagining putin wearing a macho man get up running around kicking ukraine, georgia in the groin and making threatening motions towards the baltic countries lol.

**LordofHats**

Someone photoshop us an image of Putin doing a drop kick in a Luchador outfit!

**Kanluwen**

Where's Ouze when you need him...

**Freakazoitt**

LordofHats wrote:
Ketara wrote:
Unless Russia intends on invading other countries and forcing borders, why does it need to fear 'encirclement'?

But- But Ketara! if all of Russia's neighbors join NATO they won't have any neighbors to bully anymore! And if Russia can't kick some poor developing state in the groin, how will all the other big boy countries know that Russia is super duper serial?

If it will happen, CIA will work on closer countries, turning them against Russia. I will not name those countries to not make them angry at me.
And after that, Circle will smaller. But that's not the final.
USA will say, that some democracy opressed in Siberia and other regions.
Russia will be divided into small states.
Some liberals-dissidents told me that plan. It's not my idea

.

Is it good for you?

**MrDwhitey**

That's fething absurd but ok.

And Ouze is probably sensibly avoiding this trainwreck.

**LordofHats**

Freakazoitt wrote:
Is it good for you?

You should write a fiction novel about it. Cause it sounds like great fiction

We make stuff like that in the US all the time (Ever see Red Dawn?) and they're loads of fun if you forget how patently absurd the premise is

**Kanluwen**

LordofHats wrote:
Freakazoitt wrote:
Is it good for you?

You should write a fiction novel about it. Cause it sounds like great fiction

We make stuff like that in the US all the time (Ever see Red Dawn?) and they're loads of fun if you forget how patently absurd the premise is

WAIT A DANG MINUTE!

Are you saying that "Olympus Has Fallen" isn't a true story?

**LordofHats**

Like North Korea even knows what a garbage truck is

**Ustrello**

I thought red dawn was based on true events

does this mean my shrine to the wolverines as the saviors of the united states is useless?

**Kanluwen**

But...that's why they hired someone from outside the country! Plausibly deniable!

Man, what next--are you going to tell me that "Jurassic World" wasn't a documentary about a mishap at an amusement park?
...It all happened, right?

RIGHT?

**Freakazoitt**

Red Dawn
Olympus Has Fallen

Oh do you really believe that North Korea can do anything to USA even hypothetically?
Probably it's just action, not real thriller.

**LordofHats**

Ustrello wrote:
I thought red dawn was based on true events does this mean my shrine to the wolverines as the saviors of the united states is useless?

I'll never forget watching the end of the Red Dawn remake and listening to that inspirational speech at the end and thinking "Somewhere in the Middle East, some guy with a beard is giving this exact same speech while strapping bombs to his chest." The irony was delicious

**Iron_Captain**

Ketara wrote:
Iron_Captain wrote:
True, and I understand the position of countries like the Baltic states, but NATO did not have to accept their demands for joining. NATO should have been more sensible towards Russian national interests.

I fear I might be restating myself here, but NATO is a defensive alliance.Unless Russia intends on invading other countries and forcing borders, why does it need to fear 'encirclement'? The obvious thing for Russia to do would be to join NATO itself, but as has been said elsewhere, it didn't want to do that. Which is fine. You say yourself Russia just wants to be left alone. Which is fine also.

But why is it exactly, that the foreign relations of powers completely separate to Russia, need to take Russia into account? Surely if Russia is a peaceful nation with no plans to invade anyone, NATO is absolutely no threat. I mean, just to pull into your next statement,

Unless Russia intends on invading other countries and forcing borders, why does it need to fear 'encirclement'? The obvious thing for Russia to do would be to join NATO itself, but as has been said elsewhere, it didn't want to do that. Which is fine. You say yourself Russia just wants to be left alone. Which is fine also.

But why is it exactly, that the foreign relations of powers completely separate to Russia, need to take Russia into account? Surely if Russia is a peaceful nation with no plans to invade anyone, NATO is absolutely no threat. I mean, just to pull into your next statement,

I think it is a vicious circle. Past events have caused the Baltic states to be hostile towards Russia, which causes them to join NATO, which causes modern Russia to be hostile to the Baltic States,

Why does a number of Baltic states joining NATO make modern Russia hostile to them? If Russia has no plans to meddle in those countries affairs, surely NATO is irrelevant? What organisations another country chooses to be part of is not a reason to be hostile or peaceful. Nobody in the West gets hostile towards other countries because they're joining this trade block Russia is trying to set up, the same way we wouldn't be hostile to the Phillipines if they concluded a defensive treaty with Malaysia.

There are only two possible logical reasons a country could fear/have issues with two foreign powers concluding a defensive alliance, primarily:-

-That they fear the two new allies will combine to attack them, &
-That they planned to attack one of the powers themselves, but are unable to in the face of the new combination.

The existence of nuclear weaponry has more or less put paid to the idea of anyone ever invading Russia again. So that forces me to the logical conclusion that the reason Russia gets upset at countries joining NATO, is because it would like to meddle in or subsume those countries militarily in pursuit of its own agenda, but now feels it cannot do so. If you have a third option I'm not seeing here though, please feel free to voice it.

**Ketara**

Iron_Captain wrote:

i fear I also need to restate myself here, because NATO is anything but a defensive alliance.

Sure. I think we're getting somewhere here.

NATO invaded Yugoslavia, a sovereign state and ally of Russia without any legal basis whatsoever. That is something defensive alliance don't do.

Okay. You're asserting that NATO isn't a purely defensive alliance, and therefore is a power to be feared under the first reason I gave above. That's fair enough, in light of Serbia I suppose (although I would argue that a power which intervenes in genocide isn't one to be feared unless one also plans to conduct genocide). Wouldn't you agree though, that even if I hypothetically accept that NATO is a power that can and is prepared to attack other nations outside of defensive situations, that Russia's nuclear arsenal renders any such threat moot to Russia itself?

Apart from that NATO member-states have invaded many more countries in the past two decades. NATO and its members are anything but peaceful and defensive, they agressively pursue their national interests without any regard for international law, then criticise Russia when it does the same.

NATO is by its very definition and by the behaviour of its members a huge threat to Russia. No great power wants an opposing alliance on its doorstep or even worse, in its former territory. Russia is no exception in this.

Hmmm. Okay. I think I might have grasped the angle you're approaching this from. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the issue here is that NATO member states are free to pursue independent foreign policies whilst under the umbrella protection of NATO. And Russia feels that that's somewhat unfair (to put it simplistically).

For example, Estonia can choose to cut trade to Russia overnight, and Russia has no way of responding bar similar economic methods. Poland can decide to impound a Russian military ship in their waters. If Kazkhstan goes to hell, and France suddenly decides to land troops, Russia cannot intervene against those troops without worrying about NATO getting involved. If Belarus joins NATO, Russia might have trouble stopping it from joining the EU later on to Russia's economic disadvantage.

In such a way, Russia's foreign policy options are curtailed, because it cannot interfere militarily in any situation which might involve a NATO member. So whilst NATO in and of itself is not a direct threat to Russia (due to the nukes), when more and more of Russia's neighbours sign up to it, Russia's foreign policy powers are increasingly reduced. Primarily because Russia's standing in the world and its ability to influence events is based upon its military, unlike the US or GB, who have more economic and diplomatic levers to pull. Also unlike the US and GB, Russia's influence is also limited to those countries which border it, due to its lack of international trade or distance fighting capabilities.

Therefore NATO 'encirclement' as you put it, whilst it poses no direct military threat to Russia (thanks to the nukes), does indirectly diminish Russia's power and standing.

Does that sound accurate?

**LordofHats**

Ketara wrote:
Therefore NATO 'encirclement' as you put it, whilst it poses no direct military threat to Russia (thanks to the nukes), does indirectly diminish Russia's power and standing.

Only if Russia's only conception of power is military, which kind of just circles back to the butt end of the joke.

NATO invaded Yugoslavia, a sovereign state and ally of Russia without any legal basis whatsoever.

NATO intervened in the former state of Yugoslavia, a puppet state created by the USSR that for some reason, Russia was desperate to pretend would continue existing past 1995, which it was never going to. After 1994, there was no state of Yugoslavia. Just a region of pure chaos precipitated on ethnic cleansing and Russia desperately trying to pretend there was nothing wrong. NATO's intervention was affirmed with overwhelming international support and the backing of the UN Security Council, i.e. with the backing of the international community. Using that to call NATO an 'aggressive' organization that disregards international law is rather disingenuous.

Tell me, how would the US respond if Russia, Iran and China and Mexico made an anti-US military alliance, and then got Texas and some to join them after the US collapsed and a number of states became independent. Now the remainder of the US has recovered somewhat, but it also looks like several former US states such as California want to join this alliance. How would the American Federation react to this? Would they just sit back and do nothing, letting themselves be encircled? Would they join this Russian alliance? Or would they protest and try to gain their states back?

I think Eastern Europe might cry foul over this rotten analogy as it presumes their countries are all rightfully Russian and that Russia is the real victim with everyone turning against them while completely ignoring why everyone wants to line up to oppose Russia in the first place.

**Dreadclaw69**

I hope Finland is ready to be the next target of Russian Humanitarian Assistance;
http://news.yahoo.com/russian-gay-couple-gets-asylum-finland-report-190726774.html

Following Putin's logic those ethnic Russians will need some Little Green Men to invade Finland to save them from themselves