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.

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.

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...

 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.

KTG17 wrote:

 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.

More likely it'll be over The South China Sea....

Well that would be between the USA and China, not Russia.

KTG17 wrote:
Well that would be between the USA and China, not Russia.

Maybe... that's the very important transient shipping lanes that affects Russia as well.

KTG17 wrote:

 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.

KTG17 wrote:

 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...

 djones520 wrote:

 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.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 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.

tneva82 wrote:

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.

 djones520 wrote:

 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.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 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.

tneva82 wrote:

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.

 djones520 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 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.

 Vaktathi wrote:

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.

There is another thread to continue this side topic of WW2 related interest

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....

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 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.