Is there any point in keeping NATO around?

But this is the price Estonia is apparently willing to pay. They joined anti-Russian military alliance and agreed to bear all threats from Russia in order to be not threatened by Russia. Hmm, is it just me or something is wrong with this logic? :)
If you assume everything has to be a zero-sum game, probably nothing.

Of course, Russia is turning the situation into a zero-sum game.

Since Russia denies we can create situation where we all win, and everyone gets to live, at this point Russia is ensuring someone always has to lose (could be Russia in the end though), and not everyone gets to live.

And it amounts to proving the questionable point that it must all be a zero-sum game.
 
But this is the price Estonia is apparently willing to pay. They joined anti-Russian military alliance and agreed to bear all threats from Russia in order to be not threatened by Russia. Hmm, is it just me or something is wrong with this logic? :)
If you assume everything has to be a zero-sum game, probably nothing.

Of course, Russia is turning the situation into a zero-sum game.

Since Russia denies we can create situation where we all win, and everyone gets to live, at this point Russia is ensuring someone always has to lose (could be Russia in the end though), and not everyone gets to live.

And it amounts to proving the questionable point that it must all be a zero-sum game.

On another level by its actions Russia is defining itself as a political entity that gets by on threats and intimidation, when it doesn't resort to outright violence.
 
Since Russia denies we can create situation where we all win, and everyone gets to live
Like, disbanding NATO in the same way as Warsaw pact was disbanded?
And, if necessary, creating joint security structure with Russia participation?
 
Not many countries in Europe would trust Russia to join such an organization right now. The best way to get countries to leave NATO would have been to demonstrate that a western and central European military alliance is not necessary.. but.. yeah.. you know what happened instead.
 
There were some proposals to Russia to join NATO.

I think that it would be easier make NATO reform than start some new organisation.
 
Russia would have never wanted to join NATO though. They would have only joined as leaders, not equals with the likes of Poland, Germany, France, etc. They would have wanted to join as equals of the U.S., which would have never been allowed.
 
So, particular countries don't trust Russia, join anti-Russian military block knowing full well that their relations with Russia will suffer from it. Knowing that their economy and stability will be hurt because of, hm, "strategic incertitude". Is it Russia's fault then?

It should be easy to understand that Russia trusts NATO about as much as Estonia trusts Russia. And that it will react accordingly, to appearing of NATO infrastructure in its backyard, just in about 100 km from St. Petersburg.
 
As a Dutchman, why should I care? It's not that we have common interest with the Baltics on stuff like fighting radical Islam or something like that, because even Russia agrees with that. Besides, if we do have to take our of the Baltics, the EU has quite a comprehensive common foreign policy framework in place that can fill up the vacuum left by NATO.

NATO has lasted 25 years too long at least.

I would think you would sympathize as a country who's history is full of Big-Bad-Neighbors invading and using it as a battlefield.
 
So, particular countries don't trust Russia, join anti-Russian military block knowing full well that their relations with Russia will suffer from it. Knowing that their economy and stability will be hurt because of, hm, "strategic incertitude". Is it Russia's fault then?

It should be easy to understand that Russia trusts NATO about as much as Estonia trusts Russia. And that it will react accordingly, to appearing of NATO infrastructure in its backyard, just in about 100 km from St. Petersburg.

Nah, your targets are allways friends :p

Since when do you consider NATO to be antirussian bloc? Probably this would be time to identify whose fault is that. Because you mimircy as its partner for long time and we were solving different problems than Russia for most of time.
 
Russia lost any trust and credibility they may have had right around the time they invaded Ukraine. And in doing so also made NATO important and essential again.
 
Since when do you consider NATO to be antirussian bloc?
Basically, since its creation. And now, as you can see from this thread, NATO proponents also state one of its primary goals as containing Russia's influence in Eastern Europe. Besides that, can you name NATO goals? I mean real ones, not fairy tales about global security and war against terrorism.

Probably this would be time to identify whose fault is that. Because you mimircy as its partner for long time and we were solving different problems than Russia for most of time.
It wasn't mimicry, it was genuine attempt to start partnership and close the Cold War page. The first attempt was made by Yeltsin in 1990-s and it failed when NATO attacked Russia's ally in 1999. Second attempt was made by Putin right after 9/11, when he closed several Russian military bases abroad, including intelligence center on Cuba, and offered assistance for US operation in Afghanistan. I don't know what exactly he expected to get in return, but probably giving Baltic States security guarantees from US instead of accepting them to NATO would do. That was his mistake, because in return we got nothing except promises of eternal friendship, further NATO expansion eastward and plans of installation ABM systems in Europe.

After that, was Munich speech of 2007 which marked the turnaround in Russian foreign policies. Georgian war, Ukrainian crisis and rapid deterioration of relations. Which hopefully already reached its lowest point, but possibly not yet.
 
Russia lost any trust and credibility they may have had right around the time they invaded Ukraine. And in doing so also made NATO important and essential again.

Ukraine is not a NATO member. And as a EU member, it would bring more costs than benefits. It would basically be another Greece, only worse. Russia can have it if they like.
 
The only reason you need to keep NATO around is that it annoys the Russians. Cheap at twice the price.
 
Basically, since its creation. And now, as you can see from this thread, NATO proponents also state one of its primary goals as containing Russia's influence in Eastern Europe. Besides that, can you name NATO goals? I mean real ones, not fairy tales about global security and war against terrorism.

A couple of notes are in order: the latter was never a goal of NATO, what NATO proponents think the goal of NATO is is neither here nor there, and NATO was instituted to oppose a real or perceived Soviet threat (not a Russian threat as these are two different things).

Ukraine is not a NATO member. And as a EU member, it would bring more costs than benefits. It would basically be another Greece, only worse. Russia can have it if they like.

Except Russia doesn't want Ukraine anymore (if it ever did). Putin wants just bits of it and keep the rest destabilized. so far he's doing a great job of that.
 
can you name NATO goals? I mean real ones, not fairy tales about global security and war against terrorism.

1) Keep Germany down
2) Collective security
3) Prevent European wars
 
The last time the Baltic states were independent and not protected by major allies, they were invaded, occupied, and annexed by the Soviet Union without provocation, and suffered a lot of forced population transfers. They grabbed their independence again the first chance they got. Now, with a Russian neighbor that is reviewing the legality of their secession, kidnapping and illegally detaining an Estonian policeman, broadcasting propaganda throughout Estonia and conducting cyberwarfare against it, and waging a war in Ukraine while lying about it, there's every reason for the militarily pitiful Baltic states to be afraid. Today, Russians may say that Putin has no intention of invading Estonia or creating and supporting a Russian rebellion in it. But if it happened, they'd seamlessly switch to arguing that Estonia had it coming and that it (or at least its majority-Russian areas) rightfully belong to Russia.

There's no chance of a NATO invasion of Russia, despite the dreams of Russian nationalists, as NATO lacks the motive, the political will and unity, and the capability to do that. And Russia has a vast nuclear arsenal that it would use if invaded and seriously threatened. However, Russia has a proven history of invading and occupying the Baltic states, and, if it weren't for the large NATO presence at the moment, could probably do it again within a day without fear of nuclear retaliation. The Baltic states are incapable of serious resistance on their own and a lot of NATO governments would likely bow to public pressure and decide that the independence of those small countries (or, at the least, the territorial integrity of Estonia) are not worth war with Russia. NATO cannot (and would not) risk, mount, or survive an invasion of Russia, while Russia could easily conduct and survive an invasion or subsidized rebellion in the Baltic.
 
Today, Russians may say that Putin has no intention of invading Estonia or creating and supporting a Russian rebellion in it.
Rebellion happens in the places where local government created conditions for it, intentionally or not.
There are half a million Russians and 1.5 millions of Chinese in Canada, but good luck in trying to make them rebel in the place where they aren't being mistreated.
 
Rebellion happens in the places where local government created conditions for it, intentionally or not.
There are half a million Russians and 1.5 millions of Chinese in Canada, but good luck in trying to make them rebel in the place where they aren't being mistreated.

Pretty easy to keep the peace when the hand you're dealt is Canada and not some country still recovering from Soviet misrule followed be neoliberal misreconstruction.

Pretty hard to stage annexation when there are literally 3 Oceans in between you and your target, Canada.

Pretty hard to stage annexation against NATO member, Canada.
 
And what could Russia want out of occupying Kazakhstan that it's not already getting?
 
Back
Top Bottom