Is there any point in keeping NATO around?

The Russians did it again. It was reported yesterday that, on two separate occasions in February, Tupolev bombers crossed through commercial air routes around Ireland, coming within 12 miles of the coast and forcing Irish air traffic control to ground flights, reroute others, and call the RAF for help. A flight of Typhoons went out to tell the bombers to frack off. I guess this is just becoming routine now.

Do you think it is just becoming routine now, or just starting to be pounded into the public consciousness now?

I personally suspect the latter, myself. Having been involved in the '12.1 miles is international waters, neener neener neener' game myself back in the day gives me a different perspective perhaps, but I think it has actually been routine for a long long time.
 
Cool. Putin overblew the results. I already acknowledged that, but I will again. But the results are in favor of annexation. And the turnout is comparable to a US presidential election and massively exceed the turnout of the recent midterm election. There is no valid argument that the Russians were not welcomed to Crimea with the open arms Dick Cheney predicted that US troops would get in Iraq.

I never tried to equate US actions with Russian actions in regards to who "merits" a permanent seat on the security council. As demonstrated, the US has undermined the UN, demonstrated no regard whatsoever for the UN charter to which they are signatories, have actively undermined sovereign governments around the world (which you pointed out as 'the best defense'), and have invaded two sovereign countries. There is no way I would equate their behavior with Russia's.

I get it. You want to cling to that 'but we're the good guys' stance. I have no problem with that.

Oh so now you're holding Afghanistan against the US as well? Even though that invasion was almost universally regarded as legitimate by both the UN and NATO.

So, yes, we invaded two nations, one of which had UN approval and one that didn't. So since 2001 the US has had a 50% compliance rate with the will of the UN. In that same time period not a single military action Russia has taken has had UN approval. So, yeah, 50% versus 0%. But no, you're right, Russia is nowhere near as evil and demonic as the Great Satan US. And oh no, the US lied to the UN once. Russia has done nothing but lie and undermine the UN since the very beginning of their involvement with the organization. In fact, it is pretty well-documented the only reason the USSR even joined the UN was so they could undermine it. So the US told one lie to the UN whereas it is pretty much Russian national policy to undermine the UN. Oh yeah, that's a government that I want having veto power on the UNSC.

Also, since you seem to be the petty, scorekeeping type (put in quotes for easier viewing):

US conflicts with UN approval or host nation request for intervention:

Korean War (UN approval)
1958 Lebanese Crisis (Host nation request)
Dominican Civil War (Host nation request)
Multinational Force In Lebanon (UN approval)
First Gulf War (UN approval/host nation request)
Somali Civil War (UN approval)
Operation Uphold Democracy (UN approval)
Bosnian War (UN approval)
Kosovo War (UN approval)
Afghan War (UN approval)
Yemen Insurgency (Host nation request)
Libya Intervention (UN approval)
International Intervention Against ISIS (UN approval)

US conflicts without UN approval or host nation request intervention:

Vietnam War
Bay of Pigs Invasion
Invasion of Grenada
Invasion of Panama
2003 Iraq War

So that's 13 legitimate military actions out of 18 since the creation of the UN, which means the US has acted in good faith approximately 72% of the time since joining the UN. Even if we take out the host nation requests (since I'm sure you won't see those as legitimate) the US still has acted in good faith approximately 66% of the time. Let's take a look at Russia's "good faith percentage" shall we?

Russian conflicts with UN approval or host nation request for intervention:

1953 East German Uprising (Host nation request)
Hungarian Revolution (Host nation request)
Egypt-Israeli "War of Attrition" (Host nation request)
Soviet Afghan War (Host nation request)
Tajikistan Civil War (Host nation request)

Russian conflicts without UN approval or host nation request for intervention:

Invasion of Czechoslovakia
Eritrean War for Independence
Ethio-Somali War
Transnistria War
East Prigorodny Conflict
Georgian Civil War
First Chechen War
Second Chechen War
Russo-Georgian War
Russian Intervention in Ukraine

So that leaves Russia with a "good faith percentage" of a whopping 33% and a big fat goose egg of 0% if we only count conflicts with UN approval. Seriously Tim, take off the anti-US blinders. The numbers are not on your side and your argument is completely 100% wrong. The fact that you have had to continue to move the goal posts and narrow the scope of events you are considering for your argument proves it.

Just for my own interest: How many of those conflicts that I listed were you aware of before I made this post? Be honest. I ask because I get the feeling you are woefully (or willfully maybe?) ignorant of a large portion of Russia's military aggression, as well as just how many of the US's military actions were in fact given the general blessing of the international community.

And I never once said the US were the 'good guys', just that we are the better choice. The US has proven since the formation of the UN time and again we deserve the benefit of the doubt when taking military action. Russia, on the other hand, has proved it must always be viewed with mistrust when they start throwing around their military muscle.
 
US conflicts without UN approval or host nation request intervention:

Vietnam War
Bay of Pigs Invasion
Invasion of Grenada
Invasion of Panama
2003 Iraq War
Guatemala
Nicaragua
Dominican Rep. (twice)
Chile
Haiti

Edit:
Also bombing of Libya, bombing of Iraq and Pakistan...
Kosovo war
Most likely several more which I can't remember now.

Russian conflicts without UN approval or host nation request for intervention:

Invasion of Czechoslovakia
Eritrean War for Independence
Ethio-Somali War
Transnistria War
East Prigorodny Conflict
Georgian Civil War
First Chechen War
Second Chechen War
Russo-Georgian War
Russian Intervention in Ukraine
In 5 out of 10 examples, Russia/USSR was itself a host nation.
 
Okay. So your position is not 'we are the good guys', it is just 'we are the better guys'. My mistake.

One could view your lists with a different eye, by the way. Consider that when the US comes to the UN with a legitimate and justifiable position, no one with a permanent seat on the security council is likely to veto any resolution that the right thing be done including Russia. Where if the Russians approach the UN with a legitimate and justifiable position it is very likely the US will veto any resolution just because they are Russia.

Since both Russia and the US have demonstrated that when they bring their position to the UN they are going to act no matter what is said anyway, I just don't see the difference you are pointing out here. I actually view everyone with mistrust when they start throwing around military muscle.
 
The Korean War is a particularly good example as to why UN mandates are so horribly broken - the only reason that it was a UN action rather than an Allied action was because the USSR was suspended at the time of negotiation. Their decisions have infinitely more to do with politics than with any sort of good sense.
 
Guatemala
Nicaragua
Dominican Rep. (twice)
Chile
Haiti

Check my list of legitimate conflicts. Both the Dominican Republic and Haiti are on there. Haiti was Operation Uphold Democracy which was an enforcement of a UN resolution. So am I to understand that you are making the argument that the US enforcing a UN resolution was an action that was not approved by the UN? If so you are going to have to explain your logic. Nicaragua was also before the creation of the UN so that doesn't qualify (I'm assuming you are referring to the US occupation of Nicaragua from 1912 to 1933?). As for Chile, if you are referring to the "war scare" in 1891, then that is also well before the UN. If you are referring to Project Camelot in the 1950s, that was nothing more than a counterinsurgency study. US forces did not participate in the conflict as combatants. If you are referring to Operation Condor, then you might have a case there, but my list was only including conflicts which involved the overt, large-scale deployment of each nation's conventional forces or conflicts in which they were officially recognized at the time as a combatant in the conflict.

Even though the USSR was de facto a single nation, they were not de jure a single united political entity. I would have thought a Russian would know this. Also, the Transnistria War, East Prigorodny Conflict, and the Georgian Civil War all took place either during or after the collapse of the USSR, so the government in Moscow couldn't even claim de facto authority over the nations in which those conflicts took place. While the two Chechen Wars took place inside sovereign Russian territory, they still qualify since the documented war crimes and human rights abuses conducted by Russian forces met with strong international and UN condemnation.
 
Okay. So your position is not 'we are the good guys', it is just 'we are the better guys'. My mistake.

One could view your lists with a different eye, by the way. Consider that when the US comes to the UN with a legitimate and justifiable position, no one with a permanent seat on the security council is likely to veto any resolution that the right thing be done including Russia. Where if the Russians approach the UN with a legitimate and justifiable position it is very likely the US will veto any resolution just because they are Russia.

Since both Russia and the US have demonstrated that when they bring their position to the UN they are going to act no matter what is said anyway, I just don't see the difference you are pointing out here. I actually view everyone with mistrust when they start throwing around military muscle.

Well for one, the US at least brings their actions to the UN, whereas Russia doesn't even bother with that formality. Which may explain why Russia doesn't have any UN-approved military actions. Also, on my list of UN-approved US conflicts, most of them carried a majority vote of approval in both the UNSC and General Assembly. The General Assembly votes weren't close margins either; it was usually overwhelming support for US action. Now I know General Assembly votes don't mean anything legally, but it is a pretty good gauge of how legitimate your actions appear to the rest of the world.
 
Now I know General Assembly votes don't mean anything legally, but it is a pretty good gauge of how legitimate your actions appear to the rest of the world.

Agreed. So which permanent member of the security council has used their veto power to thwart the general assembly the most? That would seem to be a pretty good gauge, right?

How is it that Israel never gets sanctioned by the UN no matter what they do again?

Look, I firmly believe your heart is in the right place. I want the US to be 'the good guy', or at least 'the better guy' myself. But all blinders aside, when it comes to 'legitimacy of use of force' we are 'just another guy'. What distinguishes us from the crowd isn't legitimacy, it is just ability. At the end of the day while 'might makes right' is a morally repugnant stance, that doesn't mean that it isn't true. And the US thrives on it.
 
Check my list of legitimate conflicts.
Checked. Found that you also incorrectly qualified bombings of Kosovo/Serbia and Libya as approved by UN.

Also, the Transnistria War, East Prigorodny Conflict, and the Georgian Civil War all took place either during or after the collapse of the USSR, so the government in Moscow couldn't even claim de facto authority over the nations in which those conflicts took place.
The conflict which you call "East-Prigorodny" happened on territory of modern Russia, as well as both Chechen wars.

While the two Chechen Wars took place inside sovereign Russian territory, they still qualify since the documented war crimes and human rights abuses conducted by Russian forces met with strong international and UN condemnation.
If this is the criteria, you should also include several US conflicts in an unapproved category.
Such as Korean and Afghan war, with documented war crimes.
 
Checked. Found that you also incorrectly qualified bombings of Kosovo/Serbia and Libya as approved by UN.

You're right in the sense that Kosovo did not receive official UN approval. It did have the implicit approval of then UN-Secretary General Kofi Annan at the time, so I'll leave it on the list.

Libya was approved by the UNSC in accordance with UNSC Resolution 1973. So that stays on the list as well.


The conflict which you call "East-Prigorodny" happened on territory of modern Russia, as well as both Chechen wars.

Okay I'll give you the East Prigorodny and First Chechen wars as taking place on Russian soil, but not the Second Chechen war since after the Chechen victory in the First Chechen war they were considered to be de facto independent of Russian rule. That means the Second Chechen war was an invasion of a sovereign state.


If this is the criteria, you should also include several US conflicts in an unapproved category.
Such as Korean and Afghan war, with documented war crimes.

Nope, notice the qualifier of "met with strong international and UN condemnation". The US was never officially condemned by the UN for their actions in Korea or Afghanistan. Plus, both of those wars were approved by UN resolutions so they stay firmly in the approved category. None of Russia's military actions have received any kind of UN approval, official or unofficial.
 
None of Russia's military actions have received any kind of UN approval, official or unofficial.
It is worth noting that the UNSC was heavily against Russia during the Cold War. Much has been made about Anglo-French (and later just French) disagreements with America, but when push came to shove they were solidly in the American camp. There was no point for Russia to work though the UN when anything it tried to do with regards to international security would be solidly shot down.
 
Do you think it is just becoming routine now, or just starting to be pounded into the public consciousness now?

I personally suspect the latter, myself. Having been involved in the '12.1 miles is international waters, neener neener neener' game myself back in the day gives me a different perspective perhaps, but I think it has actually been routine for a long long time.

It's definitely just becoming routine now. Russia suspended these kinds of flights over a decade ago because they couldn't afford them and I suspect they don't do much good when you get down to it.

They started doing random flights like this about a year or two ago but have picked up the tempo in the last few months.


I'm not sure if the US ever suspended their similar flights approaching Russian airspace, for the record. I think they did but I don't know.
 
If you can't go 12.1 miles off someone's coast and thumb your nose at them going to sea would have no entertainment value at all...
 
Libya was approved by the UNSC in accordance with UNSC Resolution 1973. So that stays on the list as well.
The resolution approved creation of no-fly zone, not bombing all Qaddafi military objects to dust. There was no resolution approving bombing, Russia would simply veto it.

Okay I'll give you the East Prigorodny and First Chechen wars as taking place on Russian soil, but not the Second Chechen war since after the Chechen victory in the First Chechen war they were considered to be de facto independent of Russian rule. That means the Second Chechen war was an invasion of a sovereign state.
Absolutely arbitrary qualification. Chechnya was de-facto independent before first war as well, and second war started with attack of islamists from Chechen territory, on Russia.

Nope, notice the qualifier of "met with strong international and UN condemnation".
That's subjective criteria, you cannot formalize it. Not to mention that in your list, you are comparing apples and oranges anyway. Vietnam war, a meatgrinder with hundreds of thousands deaths takes one position in US list - while small scale ethnic conflict between Ingush and Ossetians, with a few hundreds of victims equally takes one position in Russia's list. Comparing them is senseless, just as considering Soviet-Afghan war as legitimate, due to formal request of DRA government, or Korean war, due to accidental lack of Soviet veto on UN resolution.
 
@Tim - Yeah but then someone makes a mistake and things get nasty in a hurry.

I read someplace that during the Reagan years he had the USAF do these blitz runs at Russian airspace that gave all appearances of being first strike missions before breaking off at the last minute. Apparently there was a couple of times that nervous USSR military personnel thought WWIII was under way and nearly responded in kind before they were stopped.
 
Not to mention that in your list, you are comparing apples and oranges anyway. Vietnam war, a meatgrinder with hundreds of thousands deaths takes one position in US list - while small scale ethnic conflict between Ingush and Ossetians, with a few hundreds of victims equally takes one position in Russia's list. Comparing them is senseless, just as considering Soviet-Afghan war as legitimate, due to formal request of DRA government, or Korean war, due to accidental lack of Soviet veto on UN resolution.

It's still a valid comparison because 'scale of conflict' was not part of our discussion. Tim and I were simply discussing actions legally taken (via UN or host nation approval) versus actions illegally taken (did not receive approval). So the fact that the USSR wasn't present to veto the resolution doesn't change the fact that the US was legally authorized by the UN to deploy combat troops to Korea. The USSR's invasion of Afghanistan is also legal since the Afghan government authorized Soviet forces to enter their territory and commence combat operations.
 
I don't think there was an accidental lack of Soviet veto on Korea, fwiw.

The Soviets deliberately walked out in a hissy fit and the allies seized on the moment to pass the resolution. It was less an accident and more of a case of the allies taking advantage of Soviet ignorance on how the UN worked.


They didn't make that mistake ever again.
 
USA has a well known history of sponsoring proxy wars in an effort to over-throw any kind of government (democratically elected or otherwise) that isn't compatible with their foreign policy & interests "oil".

They're the bully in the school yard.
 
@Tim - Yeah but then someone makes a mistake and things get nasty in a hurry.

I read someplace that during the Reagan years he had the USAF do these blitz runs at Russian airspace that gave all appearances of being first strike missions before breaking off at the last minute. Apparently there was a couple of times that nervous USSR military personnel thought WWIII was under way and nearly responded in kind before they were stopped.

Back in the cold war, and probably still, there were stations set up to launch missiles at incoming Soviet bombers. Like any good military operation, they would run drills. The purpose of the drill was to go from 'identified threat' to 'missile away' as quickly as possible, and certainly within some designated acceptable time.

So this friend of mine was stationed at one of these places. Their drills defined the operator mashing his thumb on the flip cover over the fire button as 'missile away end of drill', and the CO walking in and pointing out some airliner coming over the pole as the 'identified threat start the clock'.

Then they got a new CO, who we will call Joe Gung Ho. The first time they run a drill, Joe Gung Ho gives them an unsatisfactory mark, saying they did not follow the procedure. There it is, right there in black and white; "lift the safety cover" is the last step before pressing the launch button. According to Joe Gung Ho only the final pushing of the launch button is supposed to be simulated, else the drill is unrealistic.

Now, in the course of any sort of launch activity, drill or not, there is a guy assigned to 'man the phones' and relay orders from the command center to the rest of the facility, but incoming communications also come in on a speaker in the control center. It sort of gives the officer of the deck an opportunity to respond faster, but also keeps the routine information from demanding immediate attention.

So there is heated dispute about whether this lifting of the safety cover to expose the launch button for a live missile was really a good idea, particularly with the missile targeting a civilian airliner. Joe Gung Ho gets his way. Being the CO that was unfortunately the only possible end to the debate.

A couple drills go by.

Then one fine day as the operator reluctantly flips up the safety cover and simulates pushing the launch button, person or persons unknown somewhere out in the facility pop off a CO2 fire extinguisher into a sound powered phone, and the control room speaker produces God's own roaring noise, accompanied by a shouted "Missile away! Wasn't this a drill?"

Joe Gung Ho was never quite the same.
 
I'm taking the official Kremlin results as the fudge.

More recent study, performed by GfK and Canada Fund for Local Initiatives.

A few days ago an interesting study, “The Socio-Political Sentiments in Crimea,” was released by the Ukrainian branch of GfK, the well-known German social research organization, as part of the Free Crimea initiative. Intriguingly, the primary objectives of this project, launched with the support of the governmental Canada Fund for Local Initiatives, were to “debunk aggressive Russian propaganda” and to “reintegrate Crimea into Ukraine.” Thus the researchers can hardly be suspected of being Russian sympathizers. So let’s take a look at the results.

The attitudes of Crimeans were studied in January 2015. This representative sample included 800 respondents living on the peninsula, from all age and social categories. The poll had an error margin of 3.5%.

In answer to the most important question: “Do you endorse Russia’s annexation of Crimea?” 82% of the respondents answered “yes, definitely,” and another 11% – “yes, for the most part.” Only 2% gave an unambiguously negative response, and another 2% offered a relatively negative assessment. Three percent did not specify their position.

We feel that this study fully validates the results of the referendum on reunification with Russia that was held on March 16, 2014. At that time 83% of Crimeans went to the polling stations and almost 97% expressed support for reunification.
http://orientalreview.org/2015/02/10/german-sociologists-on-crimeas-choice/

The numbers are disturbingly close to official referendum results...
93% support with error margin of 3.5% in the poll - vs 97% support with 83% turnout rate in official data.
 
Back
Top Bottom