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.

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.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:


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.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:


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!

 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?

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.

Bit of a high noon stand off this one.

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 r_squared wrote:

 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?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 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.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
....Take the Ukraine. What purpose would it serve to have Ukraine in NATO? For the life of me, I cannot see one......

You'd have to ask a Ukranian. They were interested in applying after all, NATO did not approach them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations

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

I wonder why they would try to re-apply?

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.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

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.

djones520 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:


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!

No thanks to NATO

 Iron_Captain wrote:

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!

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.

Germany, on the other hand...

Maybe Poland is secretly getting ready for a little Germany payback. That would be fun.

 LordofHats wrote:

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.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

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!

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.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

djones520 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:


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.

Misfire. Nevermind.

 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.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

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.

 Frazzled wrote:
Maybe Poland is secretly getting ready for a little Germany payback. That would be fun.

Most of the Polish population is living in Britain, Frazz, so I don't know where they would get the troops from.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 r_squared wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 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.