Is there any point in keeping NATO around?

[Tahuti]

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.

Our big-bad-neighbor is Germany. French-Dutch history hasn't been replete with friendship and love either. Given that Russia played a crucial role in the struggles against both France and Germany, it makes sense to feel some love for them. Aside from the Anglo-Dutch wars and the Boer war, Britain has often helped us out when France or Germany proved troublesome. And of course, there are the Canucks and Poles.

 

[Verbose]

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.

They weren't mistreated in Ukraine (heck, until 2014 the eastern half politically dominated the country), and the Kremlin still went ahead and massaged an artifical rebellion into existance, even if it has to be regularly re-animated from inside Russia to keep going.

That's what the Estonians and Lativians in particular eye with alarm.

The Russian identity in the Baltic states is already different from the Russian identity inside the federation, and what they want and what the Russians in Russia want don't necessarily overlap. Then what might be CLAIMED by Moscow on their behalf is something third on top of it all. But that's the one having the Baltics worried.

 

[red_elk]

And what could Russia want out of occupying Kazakhstan that it's not already getting?

About the same what it could want from Estonia.
Nothing.

They weren't mistreated in Ukraine

They say they were mistreated, the guy from Sweden in internet forum says they weren't.
I don't know who to believe, the evidences are so controversial.

 

[Verbose]

I listen to Pew:
http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/05/08...rnance-ukrainians-want-to-remain-one-country/

Not sure what you listen to, but it seems short-sighted and might have to do with principle of least resistance. If Russia gets this wrong in Ukraine, the Baltics etc., it's likely to spell erosion of Russian standing, influence and general not just political but cultural "soft-power" clout for quite some time.

 

[red_elk]

Your link doesn't say anything about mistreatment.
The only parts which allow to somewhat judge about it, is attitude of Crimeans to annexation (mind you, Crimea is the only region included in the poll, where Russians are majority):

For their part, Crimeans seem content with their annexation by Russia. Overwhelming majorities say the March 16th referendum was free and fair (91%) and that the government in Kyiv ought to recognize the results of the vote (88%).

And overall confidence in central government:

Lack of confidence in the central government is pronounced. Not including Crimea, fewer than half of Ukrainians (41%) say the current government in Kyiv is having a good influence on the way things are going in the country. Similar to views on official state languages, sharp regional divides are evident: six-in-ten in the country’s west rate Kyiv’s influence favorably, compared with only about a quarter in eastern Ukraine (24%) who share this assessment.

And this distribution suspiciously correlates with the distribution of Russian minority in regions:

Although half in western Ukraine say they trust Kyiv to guarantee personal freedoms, far fewer in eastern Ukraine (21%) and Crimea (7%) agree. Moreover, majorities in both the country’s east (71%) and west (55%) point to the nation’s lack of political leadership as a very big problem.

 

[REDY]

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.

Well about it is basicly whole thread. I would say that collective defence is self-explanatory.

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.

Do you mean Serbia? I can understand this, here are also opinions mixed. I personaly think that it was mistake, illegitimate act. But should it be considered antirussian? We Slavs probably had better knowledge about Yugoslavia, we got years to solve problem with Milosevic before intervention by ignorant Yankees. After Vukovar, Sarajevo, Mostar? Siding with man without any moral credit is somewhat repeated mistake by Russia.

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.

Bribing big guy to betray friends is generally bad idea. You should probably instead it either join NATO or persuade these small countries to not seek membership, but not with threats as recently againist Finland and Sweden.

The NATO threat to Russia is joke from the beginning. Simply put, we are still 2nd rated members of NATO because Russian paranoia. If post-communist countries wouldnt join NATO and therefore didnt specialised and demilitarised, they would be bigger danger to Russia than as NATO members now.

http://s.newsweek.com/sites/www.newsweek.com/files/styles/embedded_full/public/2015/08/14/20150811russianatoexpansionmyth3.jpg

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.

Too bad that Obama failed to act accordingly and quit missile shield in CE while giving Iran space for missile development.

 

[Yeekim]

So how exactly were Russians in Ukraine treated worse than Russians in Canada?

probably giving Baltic States security guarantees from US instead of accepting them to NATO would do.

What would be the difference from Russian perspective?

 

[red_elk]

Well about it is basicly whole thread. I would say that collective defence is self-explanatory.

Collective self-defense against who? Europe is not threatened by anybody.
And if one would say NATO is needed to protect Europe from Russia, then it would be the answer to your question, why I think NATO is anti-Russian alliance.

Do you mean Serbia? I can understand this, here are also opinions mixed. I personaly think that it was mistake, illegitimate act. But should it be considered antirussian? We Slavs probably had better knowledge about Yugoslavia, we got years to solve problem with Milosevic before intervention by ignorant Yankees. After Vukovar, Sarajevo, Mostar? Siding with man without any moral credit is somewhat repeated mistake by Russia.

We didn't side with Miloshevich, we side with the Serbians when they were bombed. Miloshevich, good or bad, was merely their leader at that time. And it should be Serbians decision to put him into jail or re-elect as a president.

Bribing big guy to betray friends is generally bad idea. You should probably instead it either join NATO or persuade these small countries to not seek membership

Both were tried. Joining NATO was tried even by USSR. As for big guy, it wasn't bribing, unless you consider all diplomacy as bribing.

The NATO threat to Russia is joke from the beginning. Simply put, we are still 2nd rated members of NATO because Russian paranoia. If post-communist countries wouldnt join NATO and therefore didnt specialised and demilitarised, they would be bigger danger to Russia than as NATO members now.

Russia didn't consider post-communist countries as a military threat, neither before nor after joining NATO. The only potential threat goes from US, which can use territory of these countries to create NATO infrastructure right next to the Russian borders. Airfields, radars, missile defense sites. Tactical nukes, if necessary. Moscow is in SRBM range from Latvia.

 

[Verbose]

And yet Russia doesn't threaten the US. It threatens its neighbours.

 

[red_elk]

So how exactly were Russians in Ukraine treated worse than Russians in Canada?

Well, I don't know where to start.
For example, Russians in Sevastopol started to form self-defense militia when they received threats from nationalists from Western regions, to send "train of friendship" with their fighters there.
http://www.rosbalt.ru/ukraina/2014/02/25/1237353.html

I haven't heard about anything similar happening in Canada.

What would be the difference from Russian perspective?

Treaty of not placing NATO contingent and infrastructure on Baltic States territory.
This infrastructure provides benefits for USA, but won't help you in case of hypothetical Russian invasion.
And if you feel threatened, you can get security guarantees from USA. And Russia, if it means anything to you.

 

[red_elk]

The only reason you need to keep NATO around is that it annoys the Russians. Cheap at twice the price.

Yes, I heard Iran and North Korea nuclear programs are nice things too.

 

[Yeekim]

Well, I don't know where to start.
For example, Russians in Sevastopol started to form self-defense militia when they received threats from nationalists from Western regions, to send "train of friendship" with their fighters there.
http://www.rosbalt.ru/ukraina/2014/02/25/1237353.html

I haven't heard about anything similar happening in Canada.

I haven't heard of Russians in Canada forming separatist paramilitaries either, but I'm not sure how that is supposed to support claims of mistreatment...

Treaty of not placing NATO contingent and infrastructure on Baltic States territory.
This infrastructure provides benefits for USA, but won't save you in case of hypothetical Russian invasion.

What infrastructure? And what benefits?

NATO is essentially nothing else but a large mutual security guarantee. Saying you would prefer another "security guarantee" makes no sense - except if you have in mind the kind on security guarantee which is not simply unlikely, but impossible to honor in practice. How, from practical POV, would US be supposed to stand by their "security guarantee", if we were restricted from using forward placement of equipment, or from creating infrastructure (airfields, harbors) even theoretically able to receive supporting troops?
I'd add that until Russia started its funny business in Ukraine, all external "NATO contingent" in Baltic states was limited to 6 (or 8?) fighters monitoring airspace.
Now there are some token ground troops as well.

 

[red_elk]

I haven't heard Russian in Canada forming separatist paramilitaries either, but I'm not sure how that is supposed to support claims of mistreatment...

Did second part of my sentence, containing reason why they formed separatist paramilitaries slip from your attention?
Namely, threats from armed groups of nationalists.

Saying you would prefer another "security guarantee" makes no sense

No, not we. You may prefer another security guarantee, considering all pros and cons of the current one. Russia will do the same, adjust its policy accordingly.

- except if you have in mind the kind on security guarantee which is not simply unlikely, but impossible to honor in practice.

If you mean successful defense against invasion from Russia, the current security guarantee is also impossible to honor in practice.

 

[Formaldehyde]

They weren't mistreated in Ukraine (heck, until 2014 the eastern half politically dominated the country), and the Kremlin still went ahead and massaged an artifical rebellion into existance, even if it has to be regularly re-animated from inside Russia to keep going.

So all this Russia's fault? That none of the facts showing there were massive problems that were splitting the country and fomenting violence long before Russia intervened simply didn't exist?

Ukraine is a very backward country in regard to human rights and corrupt politicians. There is a large neo-Nazi contingent that persecutes Jews, Roma, homosexuals and anybody else who isn't Slavic with near impunity. There have been numerous cases of torture by the police.

Ukraine stole vast amounts of Russian natural gas that almost bankrupted the country. This led to widespread discrimination of ethnic Russians. Various laws were passed that even forbid them to speak Russian anymore.

The Cold War is over. Russia doesn't practice imperialism. There is no need for the Soviet Union to create a buffer between itself and Europe anymore to protect it from the next world war.

 

[red_elk]

Russia doesn't want to annex Baltic States or Ukraine. When you see a bunch of people who hate you, it's rather uncommon to allow them enter your house. Kick their butts may be more natural desire, but not accepting them as your compatriots.

 

[REDY]

Collective self-defense against who? Europe is not threatened by anybody.
And if one would say NATO is needed to protect Europe from Russia, then it would be the answer to your question, why I think NATO is anti-Russian alliance.

While I feel not threatened on street by Angry Vlad I still rather go with group than alone. You also somewhat miss modern warfare as attacks should be even from another continents.

We didn't side with Miloshevich, we side with the Serbians when they were bombed. Miloshevich, good or bad, was merely their leader at that time. And it should be Serbians decision to put him into jail or re-elect as a president.

But it is ignorance to not see context. Hundreds of thousands people died when we did nothing and then we blame foreign intervention when another hundreds of thousands have to flee from national army again?

Russia didn't consider post-communist countries as a military threat, neither before nor after joining NATO. The only potential threat goes from US, which can use territory of these countries to create NATO infrastructure right next to the Russian borders. Airfields, radars, missile defense sites. Tactical nukes, if necessary. Moscow is in SRBM range from Latvia.

But this is not happening.

 

[Yeekim]

Did second part of my sentence, containing reason why they formed separatist paramilitaries slip from your attention?
Namely, threats from armed groups of nationalists.

Are you trying to justify their secession with events which transpired after they decided to secede?

No, not we. You may prefer another security guarantee, considering all pros and cons of the current one. Russia will do the same, adjust its policy accordingly.

You basically said that Russia would have been happy with this different setup.

If you mean successful defense against invasion from Russia, the current security guarantee is also impossible to honor in practice.

I'm aware that half brigade of external NATO troops currently positioned in Baltic States would, on its own, not be enough to seriously inconvenience Russia if it decided to annihilate them. Even less reason for you to worry about NATO encroachment.

 

[Formaldehyde]

But this is not happening.

Europe and the US continue to attempt to build facilities in these countries under the pretext it is protecting Europe from non-existent Iranian nuclear weapons.

The Soviet Union lived under the threat of a US first strike until the country finally collapsed from the cost. Unlike the US and Europe, they practiced civil defense drills until the very end because they thought they would be nuked into oblivion.

Many people on both sides continue to fight the Cold War even though it is long past.

 

[Yeekim]

So all this Russia's fault? That none of the facts showing there were massive problems that were splitting the country and fomenting violence long before Russia intervened simply didn't exist?

Because "Russian intervention" started when first tanks rolled across the border?

Ukraine is a very backward country in regard to human rights and corrupt politicians. There is a large neo-Nazi contingent that persecutes Jews, Roma, homosexuals and anybody else who isn't Slavic with near impunity. There have been numerous cases of torture by the police.

You could say the exact same thing about Russia.

Ukraine stole vast amounts of Russian natural gas that almost bankrupted the country. This led to widespread discrimination of ethnic Russians.

How did this discrimination manifest?

Various laws were passed that even forbid them to speak Russian anymore.

You're joking? No wait, you're serious.

The Cold War is over. Russia doesn't practice imperialism.

I'd like to join you in your universe. Seems like a nice place.
EDIT:

Many people on both sides continue to fight the Cold War even though it is long past.

If people (and governments) on both sides continue fighting a war, by what metric is it "long past"?

 

[red_elk]

While I feel not threatened on street by Angry Vlad I still rather go with group than alone. You also somewhat miss modern warfare as attacks should be even from another continents.

Then we should also check what your compatriots think about this. They probably won't afraid that Vlad may impale them on the streets too, but the reason why (and if) they support NATO membership may include something related to Russia.

But it is ignorance to not see context. Hundreds of thousands people died when we did nothing and then we blame foreign intervention when another hundreds of thousands have to flee from national army again?

The context is that the country was in civil war with massive human right violations from both sides. NATO intervened and broke the country apart, clearly pursuing their own goals. Don't tell me that USA spent billions on bombing campaign just because they were worried about human rights of Bosnian Muslims, that would sound like a bad joke.

Are you trying to justify their secession with events which transpired after they decided to secede?

I'm trying to answer your question, in what ways Russians are treated differently in Ukraine and Canada.
Russians in Canada, for example, were not being threatened by armed groups of nationalists, unlike Sevastopol townspeople.
Basically, I've never seen armed groups of nationalists in Canada, especially performing torchlight parades, like they did in Kiev.

"After they decided to secede" part is a bit misleading, because the conflict between pro-Russians and Ukrainian nationalists there can be traced back at least to 1991 and earlier.