Switch Theme:

Dakka debate: Is NATO still needed in the 21st Century?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Poll
Should NATO be disbanded?
Yes 31% [ 34 ]
No 55% [ 60 ]
Don't know 15% [ 16 ]
Total Votes : 110
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in ca
Lord of the Fleet






Halifornia, Nova Scotia

Mixed views on NATO.

There's some great stuff for just cooperating with other NATO nations for training purposes. Having the formal organization does make life easier in that respect for dealing with a wide array of what would be allies regardless of NATO's existence. Further, the arrangement also helps in cooperation for technology and intelligence. Now, without NATO, much of that would stay in place, as most NATO nations would still look to be friendly and cooperate with the American military, thus leading everyone to adhere to pseudo-American standards of operating during war.

That said, as a political entity serving to counter the Warsaw Pact, yeah, its old. Crimea is an interesting case for NATO and its relevance, but ultimately the result would have been the same and will likely be the same in future events regardless of NATO's existence.

Besides, if NATO stopped tomorrow, it'd only be excuse for our government to drop the charade of even pretending to care about our military. At least the pay is good, because our funding and acquisitions have never been worse. Dissolving NATO would likely worsen that for Canuckistan in particular.

Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress

+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+

Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias! 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

Eh... I'm waffling.

I think for the most part, I'd be okay with disbanding NATO.


Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Mutated Chosen Chaos Marine






Whoops. I voted wrong. Your discussion title and your poll question are oppositely worded and you will get inaccurate results. Consider changing your title or your question.

Help me, Rhonda. HA! 
   
Made in us
Wise Ethereal with Bodyguard




Catskills in NYS

I'm pretty supportive of NATO. I think it helps keep a lot of the smaller countries in Europe from being bullied. It doesn't really have any really negatives, and allows for a much more streamlined co-operative operations between countries.

Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
 kronk wrote:
Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
 sebster wrote:
Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
 BaronIveagh wrote:
Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
 
   
Made in us
Did Fulgrim Just Behead Ferrus?





Fort Worth, TX

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


I think the Big 3 in Europe: Britain, France, Germany, need to come to a new arrangement for defence and security, and let the USA focus on the Pacific.


But, didn't you guys just decide you didn't want to play with the rest of Europe anymore?

"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me."
- Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Whoops. I voted wrong. Your discussion title and your poll question are oppositely worded and you will get inaccurate results. Consider changing your title or your question.


I made the same error.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/08/26 03:30:15


“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Never Forget Isstvan!





Chicago

 sebster wrote:
 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Whoops. I voted wrong. Your discussion title and your poll question are oppositely worded and you will get inaccurate results. Consider changing your title or your question.


I made the same error.


at least 4 of us at this point

Ustrello paints- 30k, 40k multiple armies
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/614742.page 
   
Made in fi
Locked in the Tower of Amareo





 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
You have to remember that NATO goes from the Superpower that is the USA and all its might, to tiny Luxembourg with an army of only 1,000 men, which is probably smaller than most American police forces

So obviously, the support varies from country to country.


Yeah but again. Let's say Finland is part of NATO. Russia invades NATO. USA decides it's not in THEIR interests to send troops to fight for us. What they do?

Say to Russia "stop your attack and return to your area".

NATO deal 100% followed by law. THAT'S how little quarantees NATO gives to members.

And even without NATO deal if USA decides it would be in best interest of them you think they wouldn't/couldn't help?

It boils down to does USA feel it's in their interest to send their troops to die for our sake. NATO contract itself is no quarantee whatsoever. Something many Finns keeps forgetting. They just froth "Russia. Must be in NATO".

Would be funny to see their face if we were, Russia attacked and then USA decided they don't want to fight Russia for something as trivial as Finland. Would be sweet "told ya so" moment except I would be trying to escape Finland in a hurry(doubtful USA even COULD send troops in time before Finland's military would be crushed and Finland conquered anyway)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Vaktathi wrote:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Finland is an excellent example of a country that borders Russia, but which doesn't have any problems with Russia. One of the justifications of the Baltic states being in NATO is that it deters Russian aggression, but Finland seems to do fine. Perhaps the Russians still remember the Winter War, and the stubborn Finnish resistance?
Finland is of much lower strategic value. The baltic states are in the path of the meatgrinder from both sides and has much more recent memories of what they would consider occupation. Finland is not in such a path and is ruinous to traverse and supply through, there's very little to be gained in mucking about in Finland.


Yeah. If Finland WOULD be worthy for Russia we would have been CONQUERED in WW2. As it was our armies were crushed both times in the end. In Winter War it wasn't just worth the time to occupy for good what with impeding Nazi German attack. Then on '44 Russia had bigger prize in target. Germany and maybe even France though D-Day got in the way(though at least saved our butts when Russia was in a hurry to get as far to central Europe as possible before USA&Brits gets too far).

What Russia would be looking here anyway? Position isn't that important. Not much in terms of minerals either. Our economy isn't that strong so taking over that(especially with what damage war would cause) is useless. Guess if Russia would find itself in shortage of trees...

We are best protected by the fact this is so insignificant section it ain't worth risking bigger war :lol: Now if Russia would get into bigger war already sure taking us out would be more feasible and likely quite doable but starting big war for small gains...

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/26 05:45:53


2024 painted/bought: 109/109 
   
Made in gb
[DCM]
Et In Arcadia Ego





Canterbury

 Ustrello wrote:
 kronk wrote:
 A Town Called Malus wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
Russia may be an autocracy, but I can assure you it is in fact a pleasant one. Pleasant to live in, that is (unless, you have no job, than it seriously sucks).


Unless you're LGBT, then you might get beaten up in the street and discrimination against you is legal.


Or a member of a church that is not the "state" church.


Or a non slav

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/10/why-russia-is-growing-more-xenophobic/280766/



http://forward.com/news/breaking-news/348332/russian-tv-doubles-down-on-jewish-titanic-sinking-conspiracy-theory/



A privately-owned Russian television channel reran a documentary from 2012 which claimed the Titanic was sunk partly due to a conspiracy by Jews.

REN-TV aired the anti-Semitic documentary last month, according to the Coordination Forum for Countering anti-Semitism.

The documentary suggested a “group of 300” Jews, freemasons and “illluminati” had sunk the ship in 1912 to provoke an international crisis and install themselves as leaders of a world government, a central theme of anti-Semitism conspiracy theories.

The 2012 version of the documentary used the past tense, suggesting that the attempt was in the past and ultimately unsuccessful. However, REN-TV’s airing of the documentary was edited to use the present tense, as well as to link the conspiracy to various more recent events, including the Chernobyl disaster, 9/11, and the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The Federation of Jewish Communities in Russia has already expressed concern about what the rise of such ideas in Russia could mean for the Jewish community. Separately, Federation on Monday urged Russia’s new education minister Olga Vasilyeva to clarify her attitude to the era of terror under Joseph Stalin, following statements attributed to her suggesting that she had praised the efficiency of state organizations under the Soviet dictator, Interfax reported.



The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
 
   
Made in ie
Calculating Commissar




Frostgrave

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


I think the Big 3 in Europe: Britain, France, Germany, need to come to a new arrangement for defence and security, and let the USA focus on the Pacific.


But, didn't you guys just decide you didn't want to play with the rest of Europe anymore?


Nah, we still want to play with Europe, we just don't want those foreigners taking our jobs. I think.
   
Made in gb
Courageous Grand Master




-

 BigWaaagh wrote:
NATO is still very relevant, particularly as a response and check in that part of the world. Just because there's no Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union has fallen, doesn't mean there aren't instances...insert news here...where NATO's influence and ability to respond is needed.


Libya I could understand, given its close proximity to Europe, but Afghanistan? That was stretching it a bit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Whoops. I voted wrong. Your discussion title and your poll question are oppositely worded and you will get inaccurate results. Consider changing your title or your question.


C'mon, don't give the American education system a bad name


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 sebster wrote:
 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Whoops. I voted wrong. Your discussion title and your poll question are oppositely worded and you will get inaccurate results. Consider changing your title or your question.


I made the same error.


C'mon don't give the Australian education system a bad name

On a serious note, one reason cited for NATO's continued existence is its ability to deal with issues and problems the world over. Logically, I'm surprised Australia and New Zealand haven't been 'persuaded' to join.

After all, those two nations cooperate closely with other Western Nations on a ton of security and military issues, and their membership would make sense from that point of view.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Blacksails wrote:
Mixed views on NATO.

There's some great stuff for just cooperating with other NATO nations for training purposes. Having the formal organization does make life easier in that respect for dealing with a wide array of what would be allies regardless of NATO's existence. Further, the arrangement also helps in cooperation for technology and intelligence. Now, without NATO, much of that would stay in place, as most NATO nations would still look to be friendly and cooperate with the American military, thus leading everyone to adhere to pseudo-American standards of operating during war.

That said, as a political entity serving to counter the Warsaw Pact, yeah, its old. Crimea is an interesting case for NATO and its relevance, but ultimately the result would have been the same and will likely be the same in future events regardless of NATO's existence.

Besides, if NATO stopped tomorrow, it'd only be excuse for our government to drop the charade of even pretending to care about our military. At least the pay is good, because our funding and acquisitions have never been worse. Dissolving NATO would likely worsen that for Canuckistan in particular.


From a Canadian geo-political perspective, I think Canada could easily get by without NATO. Given that you have a superpower as your neighbour, any attack against Canada would be deemed as an attack on the USA given your close proximity.

But who would attack Canada anyway? You guys have never lost a war. The rest of the world knows better than to annoy Canada


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Tannhauser42 wrote:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


I think the Big 3 in Europe: Britain, France, Germany, need to come to a new arrangement for defence and security, and let the USA focus on the Pacific.


But, didn't you guys just decide you didn't want to play with the rest of Europe anymore?


I don't mind trading and cooperating with Europe on security issues, that was never the problem - it was the other stuff that bugged me.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/08/26 10:02:06


"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd 
   
Made in ru
Pragmatic Primus Commanding Cult Forces






 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I'm pretty supportive of NATO. I think it helps keep a lot of the smaller countries in Europe from being bullied. It doesn't really have any really negatives, and allows for a much more streamlined co-operative operations between countries.

Not any negatives? Except for forming an existential threat for the Russian Federation and thus forcing Russia to war? NATO membership only endangers small countries. Normally, Russia wouldn't pay any attention to countries like Estonia or Latvia. There is nothing there that is of any real interest to the Russian state. But now that they are part of NATO, they have become a huge threat (compare it to the Cuban missile crisis and the US' response to that). A threat that must be removed. Without NATO, those small countries would go back to being militarily insignificant, Russia will no longer be threatened and the whole continent will go back to being stable. Without the Warsaw Pact keeping it in balance, NATO is a huge liability to peace and stability in Europe. That is quite a bit negative, is it not?

Error 404: Interesting signature not found

 
   
Made in us
Pragmatic Primus Commanding Cult Forces






Southeastern PA, USA

Maybe Russia deserves to be threatened.

My AT Gallery
My World Eaters Showcase
View my Genestealer Cult! Article - Gallery - Blog
Best Appearance - GW Baltimore GT 2008, Colonial GT 2012

DQ:70+S++++G+M++++B++I+Pw40k90#+D++A+++/fWD66R++T(Ot)DM+++

 
   
Made in gb
Assassin with Black Lotus Poison





Bristol

 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I'm pretty supportive of NATO. I think it helps keep a lot of the smaller countries in Europe from being bullied. It doesn't really have any really negatives, and allows for a much more streamlined co-operative operations between countries.

Not any negatives? Except for forming an existential threat for the Russian Federation and thus forcing Russia to war? NATO membership only endangers small countries. Normally, Russia wouldn't pay any attention to countries like Estonia or Latvia. There is nothing there that is of any real interest to the Russian state. But now that they are part of NATO, they have become a huge threat (compare it to the Cuban missile crisis and the US' response to that). A threat that must be removed. Without NATO, those small countries would go back to being militarily insignificant, Russia will no longer be threatened and the whole continent will go back to being stable. Without the Warsaw Pact keeping it in balance, NATO is a huge liability to peace and stability in Europe. That is quite a bit negative, is it not?


Russia payed a lot of attention to those small countries for the majority of the 20th century.

Nobody forced those countries to join NATO. If they joined it was because they wanted to, probably to afford them some form of protection against Russia.

The continent, apart from Ukraine, is stable. If it becomes unstable in a military nature then it will be because of Russian aggression, not NATO.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/26 13:33:43


The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.

Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
 
   
Made in us
Battlefield Tourist




MN (Currently in WY)

In my view NATO is not super relevant for keeping Russia in check, that is a side benefit. I think it is more important in keeping European nations from turning on each other. I mean, let's go to the history books to see how well European nations have managed to get along with each other pre-NATO.

Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing 
   
Made in ru
Pragmatic Primus Commanding Cult Forces






 reds8n wrote:
 Ustrello wrote:
 kronk wrote:
 A Town Called Malus wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
Russia may be an autocracy, but I can assure you it is in fact a pleasant one. Pleasant to live in, that is (unless, you have no job, than it seriously sucks).


Unless you're LGBT, then you might get beaten up in the street and discrimination against you is legal.


Or a member of a church that is not the "state" church.


Or a non slav

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/10/why-russia-is-growing-more-xenophobic/280766/



http://forward.com/news/breaking-news/348332/russian-tv-doubles-down-on-jewish-titanic-sinking-conspiracy-theory/



A privately-owned Russian television channel reran a documentary from 2012 which claimed the Titanic was sunk partly due to a conspiracy by Jews.

REN-TV aired the anti-Semitic documentary last month, according to the Coordination Forum for Countering anti-Semitism.

The documentary suggested a “group of 300” Jews, freemasons and “illluminati” had sunk the ship in 1912 to provoke an international crisis and install themselves as leaders of a world government, a central theme of anti-Semitism conspiracy theories.

The 2012 version of the documentary used the past tense, suggesting that the attempt was in the past and ultimately unsuccessful. However, REN-TV’s airing of the documentary was edited to use the present tense, as well as to link the conspiracy to various more recent events, including the Chernobyl disaster, 9/11, and the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The Federation of Jewish Communities in Russia has already expressed concern about what the rise of such ideas in Russia could mean for the Jewish community. Separately, Federation on Monday urged Russia’s new education minister Olga Vasilyeva to clarify her attitude to the era of terror under Joseph Stalin, following statements attributed to her suggesting that she had praised the efficiency of state organizations under the Soviet dictator, Interfax reported.



Wow... A moderator attempting to derail a thread by continueing to post off-topic? What has this forum come to?
However, it is the complete lack of common sense and logic in the preceding comments that is more shocking. So, just because Russia also has immigration issues and conspiracy nutjobs it suddenly became a bad place to live if you are not Slavic? That is so ignorant I don't even know where to begin countering it. You wouldn't say that the US is a bad place to live for everyone who is not of white Anglo-Saxon descent, even though the US has these same issues. Seriously, people believe and say the most crazy things about Russia... It is goddamn frustrating.

Error 404: Interesting signature not found

 
   
Made in us
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot




On moon miranda.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I'm pretty supportive of NATO. I think it helps keep a lot of the smaller countries in Europe from being bullied. It doesn't really have any really negatives, and allows for a much more streamlined co-operative operations between countries.

Not any negatives? Except for forming an existential threat for the Russian Federation and thus forcing Russia to war? NATO membership only endangers small countries. Normally, Russia wouldn't pay any attention to countries like Estonia or Latvia. There is nothing there that is of any real interest to the Russian state. But now that they are part of NATO, they have become a huge threat (compare it to the Cuban missile crisis and the US' response to that). A threat that must be removed. Without NATO, those small countries would go back to being militarily insignificant, Russia will no longer be threatened and the whole continent will go back to being stable. Without the Warsaw Pact keeping it in balance, NATO is a huge liability to peace and stability in Europe. That is quite a bit negative, is it not?
Lets be fair, the idea that the absence of NATO will suddenly stabilize the continent and pacify all of Russia's fears is just as farcical as the idea that Russia wants to invade and take over all of Europe. Russia was in many ways treated poorly and unfairly after the fall of the Soviet Union. There have been many issues that the US, NATO, and the EU could have handled *far* better and made mistakes that were stupid and counterproductive. I don't think anyone will deny that, and some blowback from Russia on those counts is justified. At the same time however, Russia has gone somewhat overboard on keeping itself the "outsider", and that has ramifications as well. With respect to NATO, there is a factor of stabilization within much of Europe that NATO does provide (as evidenced by the fact that European armies are smaller than at any point since before Napoleon and were continuing to shrink until 2014). There are just as historically valid fears for the Latvian, Estonian and Lithuanian governments about Russia as Russia has about NATO, maybe more (having large Russian speaking minorities and having been invaded, occupied, and annexed more than once within living memory) and a Crimean-style operation, sans NATO support, could easily see them overrun and conquered almost as easily, whether Russia has such intentions or not that threat is real and nobody seems to be able to read Putin's game plan. These nations went out of their way to join NATO, NATO didn't connive and scheme to force them in. Without NATO, these nations would still conceivably be militarily significant, occupying the northern flank and coastal range of any potential conflict between Russia and anyone else in Europe, including the western and northern borders of the Kaliningrad enclave (and if they were to be annexed then Kaliningrad would no longer be an enclave).

Russia wants to go off and do Russia's thing by Russia's own self or at the very least as the clear big boss of anything Russia is engaged in. When the prospects of bringing Russia into NATO came up, Russia flatly turned down the idea because Russia wouldn't be the head honcho. That's fine, and in some ways understandable, but when Russia insists on going it alone for everything, under what is clearly an autocratic government that has shown itself willing and able to violate neighbors borders militarily, the onus then falls on Russia for feeling isolated and threatened.

Likewise, the Warsaw Pact was of questionable value in counterbalancing NATO, with most of the value being in buffer space for the Soviet Union, as many member states weren't exactly reliable and had to be militarily invaded to prevent withdrawal (Hugary, Czechoslovakia) and others simply were never going to be militarily relevant in terms of combat forces and logistics (though admittedly the same can be said of smaller NATO members as well these days).


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.  
   
Made in ru
Pragmatic Primus Commanding Cult Forces






 A Town Called Malus wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I'm pretty supportive of NATO. I think it helps keep a lot of the smaller countries in Europe from being bullied. It doesn't really have any really negatives, and allows for a much more streamlined co-operative operations between countries.

Not any negatives? Except for forming an existential threat for the Russian Federation and thus forcing Russia to war? NATO membership only endangers small countries. Normally, Russia wouldn't pay any attention to countries like Estonia or Latvia. There is nothing there that is of any real interest to the Russian state. But now that they are part of NATO, they have become a huge threat (compare it to the Cuban missile crisis and the US' response to that). A threat that must be removed. Without NATO, those small countries would go back to being militarily insignificant, Russia will no longer be threatened and the whole continent will go back to being stable. Without the Warsaw Pact keeping it in balance, NATO is a huge liability to peace and stability in Europe. That is quite a bit negative, is it not?


Russia payed a lot of attention to those small countries for the majority of the 20th century.

Nobody forced those countries to join NATO. If they joined it was because they wanted to, probably to afford them some form of protection against Russia.

The continent, apart from Ukraine, is stable. If it becomes unstable in a military nature then it will be because of Russian aggression, not NATO.

That was because of communism. The Soviets felt the need to bring communism to as many places as possible (using force if needed) in order to quicken the coming of the World Revolution. That is why the Soviets invaded surrounding nations during the 20th century. Communism is gone however, and the Russian Federation is not the Soviet Union.

The continent is far from stable. Western Europe may be stable, but eastern Europe is far from it. If war breaks out, it will be because of NATO agression, and the Russian need to defend itself from said NATO agression. NATO is unable to protect small countries such as the Baltic states, it only serves to make them the primary target for a preemptive strike by Russia. Having NATO on its border is too great of threat to ignore, and I assure you it won't be ignored. Unless NATO gets dissolved, more war in Europe within a few decades is inevitable. The question is not "will there be war?" but rather "how destructive will the war be?". The best-case scenario would be another low-intensity conflict like in Ukraine. Worst case... I probably do not need to elaborate on.

 Vaktathi wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I'm pretty supportive of NATO. I think it helps keep a lot of the smaller countries in Europe from being bullied. It doesn't really have any really negatives, and allows for a much more streamlined co-operative operations between countries.

Not any negatives? Except for forming an existential threat for the Russian Federation and thus forcing Russia to war? NATO membership only endangers small countries. Normally, Russia wouldn't pay any attention to countries like Estonia or Latvia. There is nothing there that is of any real interest to the Russian state. But now that they are part of NATO, they have become a huge threat (compare it to the Cuban missile crisis and the US' response to that). A threat that must be removed. Without NATO, those small countries would go back to being militarily insignificant, Russia will no longer be threatened and the whole continent will go back to being stable. Without the Warsaw Pact keeping it in balance, NATO is a huge liability to peace and stability in Europe. That is quite a bit negative, is it not?
Lets be fair, the idea that the absence of NATO will suddenly stabilize the continent and pacify all of Russia's fears is just as farcical as the idea that Russia wants to invade and take over all of Europe. Russia was in many ways treated poorly and unfairly after the fall of the Soviet Union. There have been many issues that the US, NATO, and the EU could have handled *far* better and made mistakes that were stupid and counterproductive. I don't think anyone will deny that, and some blowback from Russia on those counts is justified. At the same time however, Russia has gone somewhat overboard on keeping itself the "outsider", and that has ramifications as well. With respect to NATO, there is a factor of stabilization within much of Europe that NATO does provide (as evidenced by the fact that European armies are smaller than at any point since before Napoleon and were continuing to shrink until 2014). There are just as historically valid fears for the Latvian, Estonian and Lithuanian governments about Russia as Russia has about NATO, maybe more (having large Russian speaking minorities and having been invaded, occupied, and annexed more than once within living memory) and a Crimean-style operation, sans NATO support, could easily see them overrun and conquered almost as easily, whether Russia has such intentions or not that threat is real and nobody seems to be able to read Putin's game plan. These nations went out of their way to join NATO, NATO didn't connive and scheme to force them in. Without NATO, these nations would still conceivably be militarily significant, occupying the northern flank and coastal range of any potential conflict between Russia and anyone else in Europe, including the western and northern borders of the Kaliningrad enclave (and if they were to be annexed then Kaliningrad would no longer be an enclave).

Russia wants to go off and do Russia's thing by Russia's own self or at the very least as the clear big boss of anything Russia is engaged in. When the prospects of bringing Russia into NATO came up, Russia flatly turned down the idea because Russia wouldn't be the head honcho. That's fine, and in some ways understandable, but when Russia insists on going it alone for everything, under what is clearly an autocratic government that has shown itself willing and able to violate neighbors borders militarily, the onus then falls on Russia for feeling isolated and threatened.

Likewise, the Warsaw Pact was of questionable value in counterbalancing NATO, with most of the value being in buffer space for the Soviet Union, as many member states weren't exactly reliable and had to be militarily invaded to prevent withdrawal (Hugary, Czechoslovakia) and others simply were never going to be militarily relevant in terms of combat forces and logistics (though admittedly the same can be said of smaller NATO members as well these days).


Aye, I am not saying that the position of NATO or that of some of its member states is unjustified. I know that some eastern European nations are paranoid about a Russian invasion as a result of bad past experiences, just as Russia is paranoid about a Western invasion because of bad past experiences. The fears of the one aren't any more justified than the fears of the other. Russia has done its fair share of attempting to keep itself isolated, but likewise the West has also always attempted to isolate Russia. Whenever the Soviets (or later, the Russians), floated the idea of Russia joining NATO, it was shot down by the US.
But ultimately, what is justified, who is at fault for what and who is right is not at all relevant, for it won't change anything in Russia's perception of being threatened, and the danger that a threatened Russia poses.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/26 14:16:57


Error 404: Interesting signature not found

 
   
Made in us
Wise Ethereal with Bodyguard




Catskills in NYS

I'm confused at what this "NATO agression" is. Not letting Putin invade countries to boost his poll numbers?

Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
 kronk wrote:
Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
 sebster wrote:
Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
 BaronIveagh wrote:
Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

Just a thought.

What if NATO was disbanded... and then, the US has such a great relationship with Russia, that it incurs this picture:
Spoiler:


What does that mean for the rest of the world?

Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in ru
Pragmatic Primus Commanding Cult Forces






 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I'm confused at what this "NATO agression" is. Not letting Putin invade countries to boost his poll numbers?

If you can't think of anything other than that, it is not even worth my time trying to explain. I am totally fed up with these conspiracy theories about Putin. For now let's just say that in reality, Putin is far from the embodiment of evil you seem to think he is.

 whembly wrote:
Just a thought.

What if NATO was disbanded... and then, the US has such a great relationship with Russia, that it incurs this picture:
Spoiler:


What does that mean for the rest of the world?

A modern version of the treaty of Tordesillas

Error 404: Interesting signature not found

 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






New Orleans, LA

 whembly wrote:
Just a thought.

What if NATO was disbanded... and then, the US has such a great relationship with Russia, that it incurs this picture:
Spoiler:


What does that mean for the rest of the world?


You'd still have China, the 2 billion ft gorilla in the room. Not to mention the combined forces of the EU nations.

And the Brazillian carnival dancers.

DA:70S+G+M+B++I++Pw40k08+D++A++/fWD-R+T(M)DM+
 
   
Made in us
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot




On moon miranda.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

But ultimately, what is justified, who is at fault for what and who is right is not at all relevant, for it won't change anything in Russia's perception of being threatened, and the danger that a threatened Russia poses.
The issue with NATO in this regard is both that the absence of a NATO does not guarantee that Russia would face any less of a potential threat (particularly if the individual nations begin large scale rearmament without the security guarantee that NATO provides) and that NATO was rapidly dismantling its conventional capabilities until Russia militarily seized sovereignly held territory from a foreign power whos borders it had sworn to respect (in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nukes). Removing NATO doesnt necessarily improve Russia's security situation, and NATO was well on its way to neutering its conventional capabilites.




 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I'm confused at what this "NATO agression" is. Not letting Putin invade countries to boost his poll numbers?

If you can't think of anything other than that, it is not even worth my time trying to explain. I am totally fed up with these conspiracy theories about Putin. For now let's just say that in reality, Putin is far from the embodiment of evil you seem to think he is.

At the cost of Godwin'ing the thread, Putin may not be the commonly held paragon of evil that is a 1945 Hitler, but the parallels to a 1938 Hitler are not insignificant, even if not perfect. An effectively autocratic ruler dominating a nation that feels it has been wronged, with political opposition frequently disappearing/dying/jailed, mucking about with neighbors over lost territories and ethnic populations, whilst in the midst of a massive military rearmament/modernization effort and increasingly alienting themselves from the other major world powers in the name of self sufficiency. Hell there's even similarly situated Baltic Sea enclaves


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.  
   
Made in gb
Courageous Grand Master




-

 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I'm pretty supportive of NATO. I think it helps keep a lot of the smaller countries in Europe from being bullied. It doesn't really have any really negatives, and allows for a much more streamlined co-operative operations between countries.

Not any negatives? Except for forming an existential threat for the Russian Federation and thus forcing Russia to war? NATO membership only endangers small countries. Normally, Russia wouldn't pay any attention to countries like Estonia or Latvia. There is nothing there that is of any real interest to the Russian state. But now that they are part of NATO, they have become a huge threat (compare it to the Cuban missile crisis and the US' response to that). A threat that must be removed. Without NATO, those small countries would go back to being militarily insignificant, Russia will no longer be threatened and the whole continent will go back to being stable. Without the Warsaw Pact keeping it in balance, NATO is a huge liability to peace and stability in Europe. That is quite a bit negative, is it not?


I can sympathise with Russia, and IMO NATO's eastward expansion risks causing trouble that's unecessary. Russia's fears about being encircled, given its history, is something I can also understand. The Ukraine situation is not helping.

But Russia has to see the other side of the argument as well. The Baltic states were treated badly by Russia not that long ago, so it's understandable they would look to NATO for protection.

Poland is another example. I probably don't have to tell you about Russian and Polish history, so again, I can sympathise with Poland's point of view.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Easy E wrote:
In my view NATO is not super relevant for keeping Russia in check, that is a side benefit. I think it is more important in keeping European nations from turning on each other. I mean, let's go to the history books to see how well European nations have managed to get along with each other pre-NATO.


Nah, those days are past, Thank God. A jaded Western Public that is fully aware of the destructive power of modern weapons, plus recession in the West, plus democracy, makes another European war extremely unlikely.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 whembly wrote:
Just a thought.

What if NATO was disbanded... and then, the US has such a great relationship with Russia, that it incurs this picture:
Spoiler:


What does that mean for the rest of the world?


If that happens it means that Trump won, and somewhere in a dark room in Washington, the cigerette smoking man is nodding in satisfaction, as another plan succeeds


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Vaktathi wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:

But ultimately, what is justified, who is at fault for what and who is right is not at all relevant, for it won't change anything in Russia's perception of being threatened, and the danger that a threatened Russia poses.
The issue with NATO in this regard is both that the absence of a NATO does not guarantee that Russia would face any less of a potential threat (particularly if the individual nations begin large scale rearmament without the security guarantee that NATO provides) and that NATO was rapidly dismantling its conventional capabilities until Russia militarily seized sovereignly held territory from a foreign power whos borders it had sworn to respect (in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nukes). Removing NATO doesnt necessarily improve Russia's security situation, and NATO was well on its way to neutering its conventional capabilites.




 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I'm confused at what this "NATO agression" is. Not letting Putin invade countries to boost his poll numbers?

If you can't think of anything other than that, it is not even worth my time trying to explain. I am totally fed up with these conspiracy theories about Putin. For now let's just say that in reality, Putin is far from the embodiment of evil you seem to think he is.

At the cost of Godwin'ing the thread, Putin may not be the commonly held paragon of evil that is a 1945 Hitler, but the parallels to a 1938 Hitler are not insignificant, even if not perfect. An effectively autocratic ruler dominating a nation that feels it has been wronged, with political opposition frequently disappearing/dying/jailed, mucking about with neighbors over lost territories and ethnic populations, whilst in the midst of a massive military rearmament/modernization effort and increasingly alienting themselves from the other major world powers in the name of self sufficiency. Hell there's even similarly situated Baltic Sea enclaves



Putting being an autocrat doesn't always mean there will be war. After all, the USA and the UK has close ties with Saudia Arabia, and they're a pretty bad regime to say the least. Realpolitik is needed.

We should never roll over for Russia, but IMO, the West's relationship with Russia these past years could have been better, and we're getting ourselves into troublesome situations that are not necessary, and could have been better handled.

We, the west, need to up our game when it comes to geo-politics.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/08/26 18:03:46


"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd 
   
Made in us
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot




On moon miranda.

Somewhat related to the current topic...

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37196802

The Czech Republic and Hungary are openly calling for an EU army.

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.  
   
Made in us
Lord of the Fleet





Seneca Nation of Indians

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Besides, nowadays NATO is mostly just the US. Most European countries in it are barely contributing anything anymore.


You need to stop getting your nato news from from RU's foreign correspondent, Donald 'I want some Russian Spies in my Cabinet' Trump. The fact is that many nations, particularly the newer members, are hitting their Nato expenditures target numbers,.


Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
 
   
Made in us
Fate-Controlling Farseer





Fort Campbell

 BaronIveagh wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:

Besides, nowadays NATO is mostly just the US. Most European countries in it are barely contributing anything anymore.


You need to stop getting your nato news from from RU's foreign correspondent, Donald 'I want some Russian Spies in my Cabinet' Trump. The fact is that many nations, particularly the newer members, are hitting their Nato expenditures target numbers,.


If 5 of 28 means most, then I guess you're right.

Where I'm from though, 23 of 28 is most, and that is the number NOT meeting their target expenditure numbers.

Full Frontal Nerdity 
   
Made in gb
Courageous Grand Master




-

Germany, as it stands, is not hitting those target numbers, as they are only spending 1.2% of GDP on their military, as opposed to the agreed 2% target, but they have recently announced measure to buy new equipment or something, so that may change...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 djones520 wrote:
 BaronIveagh wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:

Besides, nowadays NATO is mostly just the US. Most European countries in it are barely contributing anything anymore.


You need to stop getting your nato news from from RU's foreign correspondent, Donald 'I want some Russian Spies in my Cabinet' Trump. The fact is that many nations, particularly the newer members, are hitting their Nato expenditures target numbers,.


If 5 of 28 means most, then I guess you're right.

Where I'm from though, 23 of 28 is most, and that is the number NOT meeting their target expenditure numbers.


As I've said before, you can't expect the Likes of Luxembourg and Estonia to compete with the USA's 600 billion a year defence budget, but they do contribute in other ways.

Countries like Norway, for example, specialize in Arctic warfare, and I'm sure the Belgians are good at making guns and bullets.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/27 09:38:07


"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd 
   
Made in us
Fate-Controlling Farseer





Fort Campbell

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Germany, as it stands, is not hitting those target numbers, as they are only spending 1.2% of GDP on their military, as opposed to the agreed 2% target, but they have recently announced measure to buy new equipment or something, so that may change...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 djones520 wrote:
 BaronIveagh wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:

Besides, nowadays NATO is mostly just the US. Most European countries in it are barely contributing anything anymore.


You need to stop getting your nato news from from RU's foreign correspondent, Donald 'I want some Russian Spies in my Cabinet' Trump. The fact is that many nations, particularly the newer members, are hitting their Nato expenditures target numbers,.


If 5 of 28 means most, then I guess you're right.

Where I'm from though, 23 of 28 is most, and that is the number NOT meeting their target expenditure numbers.


As I've said before, you can't expect the Likes of Luxembourg and Estonia to compete with the USA's 600 billion a year defence budget, but they do contribute in other ways.

Countries like Norway, for example, specialize in Arctic warfare, and I'm sure the Belgians are good at making guns and bullets.


Yeah, well no one is asking them to. 2% is 2% no matter what your GDP is.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/27 13:13:31


Full Frontal Nerdity 
   
Made in fi
Locked in the Tower of Amareo





 djones520 wrote:
Yeah, well no one is asking them to. 2% is 2% no matter what your GDP is.


And that's the bad side of NATO. You are forced to spend 2% with zero quarantees of getting anything actually back ever. It's worst insurance in the history of insurances. Not only you have to pay for it but even if you then NEED that insurance you aren't even quaranteed to GET what you signed for in the first place.

2024 painted/bought: 109/109 
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: