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.
If NATO had voted itself out of existance with the demise of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact it would now be necessary to reform NATO.
There was a long a long period after the end of the Cold War when the idea of a peace dividend was mooted.
9/11 and the subsequent war against Al Qaeda and then the Taliban in Afghan gave NATO a new raison d'etre.
Putin's adventures in the near abroad have re-focused minds in western Europe : the best way to negate the possible aggression of the goliath in the east of our continent is by tying in the Goliath over the ocean and by working together.
In reality, NATO does not have the same abilities as it did in the 1980s, when there where more US assets in Europe, European armies were considerably larger and NATO held seriously large scale war games on a regular basis.
Having said that, the modern Russian Army is not the offensive beast it once was, but it does not need to be. Putin's actions in Georgia and Ukraine are ideal for the Russisns. Overwhelming local force against much weaker opposition coupled with judicious use of denible 'green men' and a seeminly inexhaustible supply of 'volunteers'.
NATO has a harder task than the 1980s. The Batlic Republics in particular are very exposed and almost impossible to defend. As Poland discoved in 1939, it one thing to have promises of support from western Europe, it is another thing to retain your independence.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/03 16:22:14
Freakazoitt wrote: So is there any solution to stop second Cold War? It's very resources and nerves wasting
Get Putin to pull out of the Ukraine, Crimea, and South Ossetia, to quit flying bombers in attack patterns against NATO countries, to quit threatening to turn off the gas pipelines, make an honest attempt to stomp out cronyism and corruption in Russia, quit sending high tech ADA systems to Iran and Syria, and then we'll start talking.
Also to stop funding political parties in europe trying to destroy the EU
And then out of Karelia, Siberia, Kamchatka yes yes... Because there are oil, gas, gold, water and other things opressed by Putin? We already made agreements in Gorbachev and Eltsin times, but USA don't follow it, surrounding Russia with military bases.
quit sending high tech ADA systems to Iran and Syria
Syria is fighting against your enemy, ISIL. You should help them,
And what's wrong about Iran? Because NATO need new bases there?
Mordant 92nd 'Acid Dogs'
The Lost and Damned
Inquisition
Freakazoitt wrote: It was created to defend Europe againsy USSR.
But USSR not exist for 20+ years.
So, why?
Two big reasons. First, it's nearly impossible to take apart such organizations after they are created unless there's major internal drama, even if their original foe is not longer present. Second, it served a lot more purposes than just anti-USSR protection and was a useful political tool for almost all involved in some way.
That said, NATO was slowly moving towards non-functionality until recent events. Europe's armies are smaller and less capable in many respects than they've ever been. Nations were getting rid of their tanks, drawing down numbers, etc. Given another decade it's likely that trend may have become irreversible, but recent events have put that into a hard reverse.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Russia government always considered eastern europe is THEIRS, this includes Greece.
Why? In Crimea War, Greece supported Russia out of their religious relationships. Both countries are Eastern Orthodoxy Christian countries. and hateful towards Ottoman Empire (To the point that Russia wants to completely Annex the entire Anatolia or help Greece winning both sides of the Bosphorus and reclaime Byzantium). British however, viewed the Ottomans a neccessary vassal... to keep Russia in check.
Because the West hates Russia and wants to keep it down. That is the whole reason. Russia doesn't want to bow down to the US and is therefore a threat to the Western world order which has to be contained. That is what NATO is for. Also, it is not just aimed at Russia, but also at China, Iran etc.
Why? In Crimea War, Greece supported Russia out of their religious relationships. Both countries are Eastern Orthodoxy Christian countries. and hateful towards Ottoman Empire (To the point that Russia wants to completely Annex the entire Anatolia or help Greece winning both sides of the Bosphorus and reclaime Byzantium). British however, viewed the Ottomans a neccessary vassal... to keep Russia in check.
Yes, the West trying to contain Russia to protect its own interests goes back many centuries.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/03 18:53:11
Iron_Captain wrote: Because the West hates Russia and wants to keep it down.
That's just a teensy bit paranoid.
What the West wants, is to be able to go about it's business without fear of invasion or people interfering with their trade. If by 'keep Russia down', you mean, 'Have Russia respect current international borders and freedom of trade', then yes. We don't want the rise of a new militaristic Russian Empire. We'd much rather have the rise of a Russia that keeps the peace with the rest of us, and joins us in trying to gouge each other (and the rest of the world) in mercantile fields.
Iron_Captain wrote: Because the West hates Russia and wants to keep it down.
That's just a teensy bit paranoid.
What the West wants, is to be able to go about it's business without fear of invasion or people interfering with their trade. If by 'keep Russia down', you mean, 'Have Russia respect current international borders and freedom of trade', then yes. We don't want the rise of a new militaristic Russian Empire. We'd much rather have the rise of a Russia that keeps the peace with the rest of us, and joins us in trying to gouge each other (and the rest of the world) in mercantile fields.
Yes, I am sure the West would love a submissive Russia that would bow down to the US. The hypocrisy of the West is that they are far more militaristic and agressive than Russia is. The West wants Russia to respect international borders, but fails to do so itself. Look at how often in this century NATO countries have invaded other countries and how often Russia has. In addition, Russia also does not attempt to surround NATO with military bases, whereas NATO does and occupies traditional Russian territory. Who exactly is the agressor?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/03 19:20:38
Yes, I am sure the West would love a submissive Russia that would bow down to the US.
Errr, what? Nobody wants anybody to be 'submissive' to the US. You might want to can the hyperbole, the Americans aren't sitting on thrones and demanding that the rest of us kneel at their feet.
The hypocrisy of the West is that they are far more militaristic and agressive than Russia is.
The West or America? Because I can't remember the last time Belgium invaded anybody, Switzerland doesn't tend to be aggressive, and Denmark isn't exactly what I'd call militaristic. I could go on, but I think the point is made.
The West wants Russia to respect international borders, but fails to do so itself.
You mean all those countless invasion Sweden and Spain have launched over the years? You really need to be more precise in who you're talking about here, just saying 'The West' and handwaving makes it difficult to have a serious discussion.
Look at how often in this century NATO countries have invaded other countries and how often Russia has.
If you exclude America, I think you'll find most of them are pretty peaceful. Britain and France have a habit of interfering, I won't deny that, but NATO generally doesn't. Things like the Kosovo involvement are quite rare.
In addition, Russia also does not attempt to surround NATO with military bases, whereas NATO does and occupies traditional Russian territory. Who exactly is the agressor?
That's primarily because NATO is made up of allies. And naturally, when a new country joins NATO, it gets NATO forces based there and assessments for NATO defence of it's borders. It's a defensive alliance.
I think it says plenty about a certain mindset that a defensive alliance is perceived as being a threat, because it prevents you from invading its members. The fact is, if you are no threat to NATO, NATO is no threat to you. If you're not planning on invading a NATO country, NATO shouldn't concern you in the slightest.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/07/03 19:42:20
Look at how often in this century NATO countries have invaded other countries and how often Russia has.
List of wars involving the Russian Federation. Thirteen in twenty four years. All involving its neighbors and many to do with x region or country wanting to get out of under the thumb of the Russians. Talk about how the Soviet Union is dead and the threats of the West, but tell that to the people who the Russians are shooting at every time they want to pry themselves away from Moscow. =P
Oh and as a bit of fun, List of wars involving the United States of America . Twelve in that same period. "Oh but the Americans supported x country in x war". Yeah, because the Russians totally aren't doing the same thing for the other side half the time.
Iron_Captain wrote: whereas NATO does and occupies traditional Russian territory
Those countries don't belong to Russia. You don't get to tell them who they are allowed to ally with because they were once part of your empire. They're independent nations and their sovereignty should be respected instead of being told their opinion doesn't matter because they are apparently Russia's 'traditional territory'. Maybe the way Russia continually bullies and invades its neighbours is the very reason they want to ally with the west. That and the fact that countries tend to be more affluent with a higher standard of living in the west. I'm not a huge fan of capitalism but anyone can see the Soviet Union was a poor place to live and those nations' citizens that have been allowed to travel beyond the iron curtain don't want to go back. And Russia despises that loss of control.
I think Russia is going to become a growing threat to the world because they are going through similar moves to Germany after WW1. After the Soviet Union collapsed there was a lot of poverty and various agreements were made that in retrospect are unfavourable to Russia, this is true, and they feel they've been held down and taken advantage of. They've lost a huge amount of world influence and what they claim as 'their territory'. Russia has a colossal amount of national pride like communist countries like China and believe in making huge display of their national prowess (which is why they cheat so often at the olympics and the like) so simply can't handle it and need to lash out. Now 25 years on from the collapse of the Soviet Union the country has a lot of embarrassment and feels it deserves to get its territories back, and wants to either bully them into their control with threats and coercion, or even invasion. They constantly rattle their sabre by buzzing our airspace with nuclear bombers. Putin has done a good job of removing political opposition and rewriting the history books on the Soviet era so that an entire generation has grown up filled with propaganda. You can see greater restrictions to political opponents, greater persecution of minorities like homosexuals. And now there's the underhanded manner in which Russia tries to politically destabilise its neighbours and then reclaim 'their territory'.
Rebuilding armed forces. Making increasingly aggressive political moves towards neighbouring countries and 'lost territory'. Persecution of minorities. Silencing of political opponents. Sabre rattling at many old foes by buzzing us with submarines and nuclear bombers. Invading land they believe is theirs and displacing non-russians. Ten years ago people saying we don't need NATO any longer may have had a point. In today's world it's going to become ever more important. Although whether they'll actually act true to the ethos of NATO should Russia make a full invasion has yet to be tested. Seems to me they'll shy away from it and play right into Russia's hands.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/03 19:55:10
If NATO was an aggressive threat to Russia we would have struck 18 years ago, once the Soviet Union was well and truly collapsed, and before we had let our own forces decline for the "peace dividend".
However let's not let military logic interfere with our prejudices.
The hypocrisy of the West is that they are far more militaristic and agressive than Russia is.
The West or America? Because I can't remember the last time Belgium invaded anybody, Switzerland doesn't tend to be aggressive, and Denmark isn't exactly what I'd call militaristic. I could go on, but I think the point is made.
The West wants Russia to respect international borders, but fails to do so itself.
You mean all those countless invasion Sweden and Spain have launched over the years? You really need to be more precise in who you're talking about here, just saying 'The West' and handwaving makes it difficult to have a serious discussion.
With the West I mean NATO. (most Western countries are NATO members, so that is why it often gets used when referring to NATO)
Look at how often in this century NATO countries have invaded other countries and how often Russia has.
If you exclude America, I think you'll find most of them are pretty peaceful. Britain and France have a habit of interfering, I won't deny that, but NATO generally doesn't. Things like the Kosovo involvement are quite rare.
Still more common than invasions by Russia. And besides, you can't just simply exclude America. America is NATO. The European countries are just sidekicks that go along because they many of the same goals and also profit from US imperialism.
In addition, Russia also does not attempt to surround NATO with military bases, whereas NATO does and occupies traditional Russian territory. Who exactly is the agressor?
That's primarily because NATO is made up of allies. And naturally, when a new country joins NATO, it gets NATO forces based there and assessments for NATO defence of it's borders. It's a defensive alliance.
How convenient than that all NATO allies somehow add to the surrounding of Russia? Why does NATO not have members in South America, Africa or South Asia, but only in regions bordering Russia?
Ketara wrote: I think it says plenty about a certain mindset that a defensive alliance is perceived as being a threat, because it prevents you from invading its members. The fact is, if you are no threat to NATO, NATO is no threat to you. If you're not planning on invading a NATO country, NATO shouldn't concern you in the slightest.
If you say NATO is a defensive alliance, you are fooling yourself. Ask any Serb how defensive NATO is! How were Serbia, Iraq Libya etc. threats to NATO?
Kilkrazy wrote: If NATO was an aggressive threat to Russia we would have struck 18 years ago, once the Soviet Union was well and truly collapsed, and before we had let our own forces decline for the "peace dividend".
However let's not let military logic interfere with our prejudices.
18 years ago there was no need for NATO to strike because there was Yeltsin. Yeltsin did more to destroy Russia than NATO could possibly have done. Besides, at that point in time Russia was absolutely no threat to NATO as Yeltsin licked their boots.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/03 20:04:52
How convenient than that all NATO allies somehow add to the surrounding of Russia? Why does NATO not have members in South America, Africa or South Asia, but only in regions bordering Russia?
North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Uh, its sort of in the name. Admittedly its grown to encompass many European countries, but the sentiments there. They could be called the "Please don't Invade us USSR Pact" for all the name matters though, but I guess you'll argue the semantics to the death anyway. =P
Belittle Yeltsin all you want, but also remember that he chose Putin as his successor...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/03 20:12:31
Iron_Captain wrote: With the West I mean NATO. (most Western countries are NATO members, so that is why it often gets used when referring to NATO)
Still more common than invasions by Russia.
And besides, you can't just simply exclude America. America is NATO. The European countries are just sidekicks that go along because they many of the same goals and also profit from US imperialism.
See, this lumping together of everyone in Europe under the thumb of the Americans and the blanket label of 'the West' is where I honestly think you go a bit off track. NATO is full of countries like those I just listed, who want nothing more than to get on with life. Then you have another tier of European countries who are a bit bigger, and tend to chase their own interests. And then you have America, who are like those European countries but bigger and more powerful than any of them individually.
Sometimes some of us go along with America (because it fits our interests to do so, we've all been playing the Great Game for longer than these Yank upstarts!)
But quite often, we don't. There's a reason a lot of Americans complain about how all we Europeans do is sit there and criticise them. The truth is, most of Europe left WW2 exhausted and deeply psychologically scarred by two generations of conflict. NATO would have been a possibility/likelihood even without the Americans. NATO, like the EU, is a way of binding together all those advanced European nations who have tremendous economic power, and the capacity to produce corresponding tremendous military power.
How convenient than that all NATO allies somehow add to the surrounding of Russia? Why does NATO not have members in South America, Africa or South Asia, but only in regions bordering Russia?
Because none of those nations had just finished a set of destructive European wars mere years before NATO was formed.
If you say NATO is a defensive alliance, you are fooling yourself. Ask any Serb how defensive NATO is!
How were Serbia, Iraq Libya etc. threats to NATO?
Libya wasn't a NATO operation. Neither were the Iraqi wars. I think you need to distinguish between wars that had NATO members involved in them, and wars that had NATO as an organisation involved in them. Otherwise, it makes it hard to have a discussion on the matter.
Iron_Captain wrote: Because the West hates Russia and wants to keep it down.
What exactly do you define as "the West"...?
Methinks that there's some misunderstanding here. Russia isn't something people think about needing to be "subjugated". It isn't even a place most people think about a whole lot period. When MItt Romney said that Russia was the most important geopolitical threat the US faced in the 2012 election, he was responded to with laughter by almost everyone, because it was seen as him being two decades out of touch.
This is not to say that there haven't been donkey-cave moves by the US and other NATO nations towards Russia, there have been. US treatment of Russia after the fall of the USSR was very poorly handled. But to suggest that "the West" in general has some sort of shadowy long term plan to subjugate Russia is rather absurd, if for no other reason than it attributes a long term unity, force of will, and commitment that just isn't there.
Russia's real threat is China. China is essentially acting as economic loan shark, negotiating controlling shares in large numbers of new ventures, shares a very long border with Russia, has 10x the population and some relatively close ethnic relations with minorities in eastern Russia, and is probably the one nation that has proven an ability to unify and conform to a long term plan and see it through, even over numerous political lifetimes.
That is the whole reason. Russia doesn't want to bow down to the US and is therefore a threat to the Western world order which has to be contained. That is what NATO is for.
NATO continued to exist after the fall of the USSR because it was too much effort to dismantle it and they found other reasons to keep it around. Nobody was talking about NATO engaging in any sort of conflict with Russia three or four years ago.
NATO functions on the strength of the US military alone. It has effectively allowed and incentivized Europe to spend the last two decades disarming until very recently. This was a good thing, it was a stabilizing force amongst the countries within the alliance who had previously massacred each other by the millions. Europe's armies shrank, their capabilities withered, their will and need to resort to violence diminished, and they decided to stop funding and supporting massive military establishments and put that money elsewhere. The only reason NATO is able to pose a conventional threat to anyone really is because the US military takes up a huge amount of slack.
Really, the bigger problem quite honestly is the low degree of integration on consumer and industrial goods that the US/EU and Russia have. Integrated economies typically don't have military tension. In the US, about the only Russian products you'll find are booze, crab, and surplus military equipment. Russia's exports to other nations, while different in composition, have largely the same problem. It's mostly resources. As much as a fan as I am of Kalashnikov rifles and cheap ammunition, if that's the most recognized "Consumer' product of a nation, it doesn't speak well to economic integration (even before import from Izhmash was banned), particularly when half a dozen (or more) other nations export the same product (Bulgaria, Romania, Poland, Serbia, etc). Russian export composition is largely commodity based. I have clothes from Bangladesh, shoes from Thailand, a TV from Japan, a phone made in Korea, a watch made in Germany, paintbrushes from Spain, gaming miniatures from the UK, a car assembled in Japan from parts made in Mexico, countless things from China (flasks, silverware, tackle boxes, cups, etc), computer components from India and Vietnam, but the only things I have from Russia are Izhevsk manufactured AK-74 magazines, and those were specially sought out specifically because they were Russian, I had to go out of my way to look for and buy them just for that special fact.
Russia's economic integration level with most other nations is effectively that of a developing nation, even if the volumes of trade are large. That means issues that arise are much more likely to be seen as with "the other" as opposed to "the neighbor".
Yes, the West trying to contain Russia to protect its own interests goes back many centuries.
You make it sound like there was some sort of organized anti-Russian secret cabal, rather than constantly shifting power paradigms that constantly tried to take down whoever was looking to start being top dog. The western and central Europeans fought amongst each other and backstabbed each other at least as much as they did anything to Russia, usually moreso. Even issues with the US are less than a hundred years old, all post-revolution issues and in fact mostly post WW2.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Mordant 92nd 'Acid Dogs'
The Lost and Damned
Inquisition
