I was primarily referencing France and Germany. Who both seem to use the lowlands as a personal military highway when they see fit.
And it was aimed at the sentiment, rather than the actual players.
Is there any point in keeping NATO around?
- Thread starter Godwynn
- Start date
I was primarily referencing France and Germany. Who both seem to use the lowlands as a personal military highway when they see fit.
And it was aimed at the sentiment, rather than the actual players.
Source? If you mean anti-missile defense system in CZ and PL it was abandoned by Obama. Againist Russian missile arsenal it would have not any value.
Verbose
Deity
The fundamental problem with Russia's stance right now, is that it wants neighbouring states to not have such security guarantees against Russia. The only security guarantees its neighbours can have that are acceptable to Russia as it presently behaves, are non-working, worthless ones.
And that's something, considering the doubts and aspersions that can and have been cast on NATO's actual ability to supply them.
Verbose
Deity
Russia threatened Sweden last week through official channels.
Then there just the general Russian threatening behaviour on sea and in the air of late.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
Russia's opinions regarding this are quite well known and are completely contrary to those sort of opinions, which is also a large part of the reason why Obama finally "abandoned" it. The other part is because it clearly makes no sense regarding Iran's actual capabilities and desires. It was just more fearmongering from the usual sources with the added purpose of trying to incite Cold War sentiment.
As Russia pointed out, if Europe really wanted an early warning missile defense system to protect themselves from a non-existent Iranian threat, it would have made far more sense for it to be stationed in Russia. Yet for some odd reason it wasn't even considered as a possibility. I wonder why...
Probably this is the fundamental problem indeed.
That one particular country opposes its neighbors joining military alliance directed against it.
You seem to be hesitant to quote how the "threat" sounded
Maybe you would be suprised. Its also different what they thought in 2000, 2008 and 2015. Its not that simple like you would like to believe. Opinions of our last presidents:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Václav_Klaus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miloš_Zeman
I would expect strong argumentation for such cynical rant.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
This gravitation of countries towards NATO is going to continue until countries stop viewing Russia as a threat, justified or not. I know Russians are not going to like the sound of this at all, but Russia is going to have to stop treating her neighbours as potential spheres of influence, and start treating them as sovereign nations with independent aspirations.. in other words - as equals.
The more Russia "responds" to the feeling of being closed in by NATO, the more her neighbours are going to want to join NATO. It seems like a bit of a catch22, but Russia is not going to get anywhere by trying to pressure countries to stop joining such alliances. The more Russia does this - the more countries will be convinced that joining such alliances is in their best interests.
Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you look at it), the best thing Russia can do is stop trying to act like a superpower with sphere of influence interests, and start acting like a country willing to be an equal and a partner to her neighbours. Right now there is a lot of a "cold war" like feel to the proceedings, which is of course pushing countries into a "Maybe we should join NATO" corner. Russia can't reverse this with threats - that is just going to have the opposite effect. Russia can't really reverse it no matter what it does - a lot of the damage has already been done. The only thing left to do is chill the hell out and sit back, and build positive relationships with surrounding nations - instead of negative ones. It will take a lot of time, maybe decades, but eventually countries will chill out, once they stop seeing Russia as a threat. Justified or not, right now a lot of them do. Nothing really Russia can do, there is no magic bullet solution. You reap what you sow, in a way.
The more Russia "responds" to the feeling of being closed in by NATO, the more her neighbours are going to want to join NATO. It seems like a bit of a catch22, but Russia is not going to get anywhere by trying to pressure countries to stop joining such alliances. The more Russia does this - the more countries will be convinced that joining such alliances is in their best interests.
Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you look at it), the best thing Russia can do is stop trying to act like a superpower with sphere of influence interests, and start acting like a country willing to be an equal and a partner to her neighbours. Right now there is a lot of a "cold war" like feel to the proceedings, which is of course pushing countries into a "Maybe we should join NATO" corner. Russia can't reverse this with threats - that is just going to have the opposite effect. Russia can't really reverse it no matter what it does - a lot of the damage has already been done. The only thing left to do is chill the hell out and sit back, and build positive relationships with surrounding nations - instead of negative ones. It will take a lot of time, maybe decades, but eventually countries will chill out, once they stop seeing Russia as a threat. Justified or not, right now a lot of them do. Nothing really Russia can do, there is no magic bullet solution. You reap what you sow, in a way.
What part of my statement needs argumentation?
Currently, Russia treats its neighbors with about the same respect as they treat Russia.
Belarussia, Armenia and Kazakhstan aren't complaining much.
That's right. Latvia, for example, has already lost 25% of its population since 1989.
Akka
Moody old mage.
Ukraine and Georgia.
That is all this thread needs as an answer, it should have been over at post #2.
I can't believe you people still are running in circle trying to argue against bad faith. Hello windmills ?
That is all this thread needs as an answer, it should have been over at post #2.
I can't believe you people still are running in circle trying to argue against bad faith. Hello windmills ?
It was mentioned repeatedly, but people like to argue.
Possibly because it is an absurd proposition. At any rate, Turkey is closer to Iran than Russia. Even Georgia is.
Really? I've heard about reguests from Eastern Europe for defense systems, but they're not worried about Iran.
Not according to historians. While the relative cost of Soviet defense spending was huge, the collapse was entirely political.
Possibly because it is an absurd proposition. At any rate, Turkey is closer to Iran than Russia. Even Georgia is.
Really? I've heard about reguests from Eastern Europe for defense systems, but they're not worried about Iran.
Not according to historians. While the relative cost of Soviet defense spending was huge, the collapse was entirely political.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
*shrug* if you guys want countries that border you to stop thinking of joining western military alliances, you'll need to treat them even better. Otherwise the glorious list of countries which "don't complain much" is going to be limited to Belarus & Co.
It depends whether they want us to treat them better. If yes, they can easily achieve that.
What is the problem with Belarus and Co? I named just closest partners.
The Armenian situation is kind of special. They have frozen conflict with Azerbaijan and also problematic relations with Turkey. But their relations with Russia are traditionally good and they have to rely on Russian military support if things get worse.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
That's not how a partnership between equals works. What you're describing is more how an abusive relationship generally works.
As for what is wrong with Belarus..
Look, it's simple.
You describe the situation like if it's Russia who must behave better, if it wants to improve relations with the Baltic States. I'm trying to show you the opposite point of view, where Baltic States should make some effort to improve relations.
In reality, or in a "partnership between equals", it must be at least mutual process. You are unhappy with our behavior, sure, but we are unhappy with your behavior too. It doesn't mean the ball is on our side.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
It's Russia who wants to stop countries from joining NATO, right? As such, Russia has to show those countries that "there is nothing to worry about" (tm), and so far as far as those countries are concerned it is doing exactly the opposite and driving them right into the arms of NATO.
The ball doesn't matter, these are all sovereign nations that will respond to external stimuli in their own best interests. You can't control them, they will join NATO if they want. And so far they are for the most part convinced that joining NATO would be good for them, in part due to the way Russia has been behaving wrt to her neighbours.
So I mean, Russia can do what it wants, but it shouldn't be surprised that the current atmosphere is driving everyone straight into NATO's arms.
The ball doesn't matter, these are all sovereign nations that will respond to external stimuli in their own best interests. You can't control them, they will join NATO if they want. And so far they are for the most part convinced that joining NATO would be good for them, in part due to the way Russia has been behaving wrt to her neighbours.
So I mean, Russia can do what it wants, but it shouldn't be surprised that the current atmosphere is driving everyone straight into NATO's arms.
Which countries you are talking about? Baltic States joined NATO decade ago, so showing them that "there is nothing to worry about" is a bit too late. If you are talking about Finland and Sweden, as far as I'm concerned Russia is in mode "business as usual" with them, no sanctions were applied. Ikea is selling their stuff in Russia and Finnish paper business also works well. This may change if they join NATO of course, but so far the message to them is exactly "there is nothing to worry about".
The chance that neutral Sweden will be attacked by Russia is about the same as the chance to be attacked by Germany or Finland. There's simply nothing to gain from such attack.
The chance that neutral Sweden will be attacked by Russia is about the same as the chance to be attacked by Germany or Finland. There's simply nothing to gain from such attack.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
I was talking about any countries close to your border not yet in NATO, including countries like Finland and Sweden.
Even if we forget the increased Russian military activity in the baltic, there is this:
You don't have to convince me that there is nothing to worry about. I realize that Russia would probably never invade Sweden.
My point is only that countries like Sweden are looking to NATO because they don't trust Russia, they're seeing an increased military presence and activity near their borders, they're seeing Russia violate sovereignty of other nations, there is a lot of a "cold war"-like atmosphere in the entire region and globally, and on top of all that they are getting direct threats from the Russian ambassador.
Of course they're going to look to NATO, there is an unpredictable military power nearby. My point is that you don't have to convince me of anything - Russian government actions have to convince the leadership of countries like Sweden. And right now these countries are being convinced that they need to think about joining NATO.
Verbose
Deity
There's nothing to gain for Russia in making war in Ukraine either, and yet it's there now.
Russia is already subjecting the Baltic states to a barrage of actions generating "strategic uncertanity". It's extended into the Baltic at large, with these transponder-less military flights inside civilian air-traffic-lanes, Swedish and Finnish research vessels run off by Russian warships, and Russian warships obstructing the laying of under-water cables in the Baltic.
If it was only outright military attacks by Russia there was to worry about, things would be highly predictable, but that's a simplistic binary notion at odds with what's currently going on.
What does it signify when the legal branch of the Russian apparatus of state declares that it will "review" the "legality" of the independence of the Baltic states, while the excecutive branch takes it back? Especially when the persistance of political trials in Russia means everyone knows that the legal branch in Russia is subservient to the executive...
The Russian foreign office making threatening noises towards Sweden over hypothetical NATO membership at a time when Sweden isn't joining NATO is rather less alarming. Mostly it's just rude, which otoh in itself is a form of hostility.
Russia is already subjecting the Baltic states to a barrage of actions generating "strategic uncertanity". It's extended into the Baltic at large, with these transponder-less military flights inside civilian air-traffic-lanes, Swedish and Finnish research vessels run off by Russian warships, and Russian warships obstructing the laying of under-water cables in the Baltic.
If it was only outright military attacks by Russia there was to worry about, things would be highly predictable, but that's a simplistic binary notion at odds with what's currently going on.
What does it signify when the legal branch of the Russian apparatus of state declares that it will "review" the "legality" of the independence of the Baltic states, while the excecutive branch takes it back? Especially when the persistance of political trials in Russia means everyone knows that the legal branch in Russia is subservient to the executive...
The Russian foreign office making threatening noises towards Sweden over hypothetical NATO membership at a time when Sweden isn't joining NATO is rather less alarming. Mostly it's just rude, which otoh in itself is a form of hostility.
Similar threads
