Is there any point in keeping NATO around?

[Yeekim]

my "unfailing" series of "being right"

Speaking only in incomprehensible riddles is, indeed, a time-honored tradition of oracles.

 

[r16]

what would you like me to do , announce that F-22 #1 is 22 000 feet , while #2 is setting up for a beam shot at the lead MiG ? In the first place ı wouldn't have anything like that , second you might not welcome the outcome . Am indeed quite clear to read and grasp , that's why people no longer bother to advertise in the brilliant prospects of my country in the stupid reality that am the only Turkish dude in the Off-topic section ...

 

[Verbose]

ı said ı would be the last Turk in Turkey in some strategy forum , that's why they had me banned . For polluting the place when there was this rosy future ahead . Though you might love the thing that my "unfailing" series of "being right" is now a campaign thing or something with locals readily telling each other that "But he is a pervert." or "mocks Muslims with reference to beards." This last from a guy who doesn't have a beard and obviously no clue to the "origin" . Where the beardy son of a mine owner had the energy minister to breakfast in the mine . The secure , all secure mine a year before it exploded and 300 or so were killed . The New Turkey of course declares it was a sabotage , and not the beardy cutting on safety . But then ... the whole world kinda expects the energy minister to deploy to the Southeast and be a martyr as he said he would love to ...

am unfailingly right only because it was impossible to miss , even for an idiot like me , that the West would never give anything to Ankara in any deal .

Sorry, but you've completely lost me.

Let's back-track to something that would seem it might be reasonably specific:
WHAT was it that Ankara migth have been expecting to start with? In what kind of deal? And from whom more precisely?

 

[r16]

all the democracy , all the reforms , everything people loved about Turkey between 2000 and 2010s were about "transforming" the country into a suitable "vessel" for a federation with Kurds or Arabs or a combination of Kurds with Arabs so that the borders could be changed to include oilfields . Am not arguing against Human Rights in any capacity , but the real thing is , as a Turk , it was really expected that ı would be a second class citizen . Guilty of crimes ı never committed , guilty of oppression ı didn't commit . Never mind , as a Turk we are supposed to be money loving ; we would get accustomed to facts on the ground .

there's this rift that grows between the State and Nation , it's really a new thing to see the mothers of the killed to call for the politicians and officials to send their own boys to die . Would happen . After all these years of State propaganda that the seperatists were poor kids driven to the mountains under Kemalist tyranny . Only because Iran and Russia can easily stare down the US , which then stops the glorious Turkish conquest of places and the smartest of the counter-revolution ponder on what might happen if they can not compensate for the surrender of the country to the seperatists . Without spoils it can not be explained . Which means the seperatist hold must be broken , to assure an election win .

instead of a prosperous country , with a tolerable oppression under Islamist tendencies , we are just about to get a wreck , torn apart by Civil War . And sure enough America supports ... not Ankara . Never minding their hovering around .

 

[Kyriakos]

R16, serious question: any maps of the sides/populations in that prospective/theorised civil war to come? (i have to suppose some exist online, given the tendency in this area for map-making and such stuff ).

 

[red_elk]

They simply have too much land to defend and not enough people to defend it and their potential enemies have the ability to strike anywhere in the Russian homeland while Russia really doesn't have the ability to do the same without resorting to using their nuclear arsenal.

That's why it has removed "no first use" policy from it's military doctrine.

 

[Phrossack]

So they win the battle, but they would ultimately lose the war. The simulation you reference only involves the forces we currently have stationed in Europe. It doesn't factor in the mobilization that would take place in every NATO nation.

I also hate that all these simulations assume there will be some "Great Russian Horde". Russia has a smaller population than the US and has a smaller standing military than the US. And while Russia has done quite a bit of military modernization lately, they still do not have nearly the amount of force multipliers, or power projection capabilities of the US.

Why am I only talking about the US? Because I am illustrating that the US is just one NATO nation, and they could defeat Russia in a protracted conventional conflict alone. Throw in the other NATO nations, plus the US's Pacific allies who could probably be coaxed into hitting Russia as well, and things start to look pretty grim for Russia in any war they start with NATO. They simply have too much land to defend and not enough people to defend it and their potential enemies have the ability to strike anywhere in the Russian homeland while Russia really doesn't have the ability to do the same without resorting to using their nuclear arsenal.

And what allies can Russia call upon? Assad? Iran? North Korea? Those are not the allies you want on your side when you are fighting the most powerful and sophisticated militaries on the planet.

Speaking of sophistication, that reminds me of another disparity between Russia and NATO: training. Sure, Spetznaz are some of the best trained soldiers on the planet, but the average Russian infantryman is poorly trained and equipped compared to his NATO counterpart. The Russian military also seems to suffer greatly from a leadership problem. Their operations in Georgia, Ukraine, and Chechnya were poorly executed and extremely sloppy operations. When operations are poorly executed, that can usually be attributed to poor leadership from officers and NCOs on the ground.

So, in this hypothetical conflict, Russia may initially take the Baltics, but the region would then be liberated in relatively short order.

Russia may have an overall smaller population and military than the US, but this is irrelevant when it has localized superiority. Meanwhile, it has something most of NATO lacks--a will to fight. Most of NATO's member states' populations care very little about the Baltic states' independence--I'm always alarmed to find how many people, American and European, are unaware of the fact that the Baltic states have their own languages and aren't just all Russians. Germany has a deeply pacifist culture and I wouldn't trust it to do much more than lip service to requests for military aid in case of Russian-backed and Russian-instigated "rebellions" or full-scale invasion. Honestly, I have my doubts that the German public would be in favor of a military defense of Germany. To much of the rest of Western Europe, the Baltic is a distant, irrelevant region not worth a major war defending. Eastern members like Poland probably would rush to Estonia's defense, as would the US, but the others? I wouldn't trust them. If Russia were to quickly take Estonia and install strong defenses, how many NATO member states would care enough to try to liberate it? A full-scale invasion is unlikely--more likely is a scenario involving Russian "rebels" with suspiciously large amounts of heavy weaponry and trained recruits--but militarily the Baltic states are feeble and their allies are unenthusiastic.

Moreover, if Russia did invade Estonia, why would non-NATO members like America's Pacific allies get involved? Japan certainly wouldn't invade mainland Russia or even the Kurils, if that's what you're hinting at. I don't see a major conventional war happening outside of the Baltic in case of invasion.

 

[Kyriakos]

Germany has a deeply pacifist culture

Τοπ ΛΟΛ

Germany has easily the bleakest cultural undertones in the EU, exactly due to its entirely unresolved and taboo WW2 past.

 

[Tahuti]

Τοπ ΛΟΛ

Germany has easily the bleakest undertones in the EU, exactly due to its entirely unresolved and taboo WW2 past.

Polandball: Yuo evil Germans, yuo are of Nazism after all these years! Why cannot we into biggest country in European Council?
Greeceball: We don't owe yuo of any debt.
Netherlandsball: Yuo still owe us money of WWII.
Belgiumball: Me too!
Franceball: Oui, moi aussi!
Netherlandsball: Israelcube, can yuo help us and give us your guildcard plox? Then East Jerusalem of yours and free weed!
Israelcube: Sure thing bro!
Franceball: Merci! Eh, Russie, if yuo of secours us too, nous give you Baltics en retournez!
Lithuaniaball: Screw you France!
Russiaball: Alright comrade, we all of embarkings on another Great Patriotic War!
Germanyball: I hate myself! Please kill me!

 

[Phrossack]

Τοπ ΛΟΛ

Germany has easily the bleakest cultural undertones in the EU, exactly due to its entirely unresolved and taboo WW2 past.

You ever lived in Germany? Gotten to know Germans? Learned German? Read about Germany? Not let your national chauvinism get in the way of noticing the fact that war guilt is one of the central pillars of German culture and that it has done more than probably any other country in history to face up to its past while most other countries prefer to ignore and justify their atrocities at the same time?

No?

Didn't think so.

 

[Commodore]

Moreover, if Russia did invade Estonia, why would non-NATO members like America's Pacific allies get involved? Japan certainly wouldn't invade mainland Russia or even the Kurils, if that's what you're hinting at. I don't see a major conventional war happening outside of the Baltic in case of invasion.

No, our Pacific allies wouldn't invade Russia, they would just harass them enough to keep them from bringing the full might of their military to bear against NATO in Europe.

And the US's non-NATO allies would get involved if the US asked, because refusing such a request would make the US extremely disinclined to continue protecting them from their enemies as well. That's kinda how alliances work. You go fight alongside your allies when they ask you to, even if you don't want to. Either that, or you withdraw from the alliance.

In a war with Russia, our Pacific Fleet would do most of the heavy lifting in the Pacific theatre with our Pacific allies providing mostly logistic support and harassing Russian forces wherever they can. The only Pacific ally that would have any kind of major troop deployment alongside the US would probably be Australia. I do agree though that any action in the Pacific would be minor in comparison to what would be going on in Europe, since any action against Russia in the Pacific would only serve the purpose of logistic disruption and keeping Russian forces divided.

And I get that NATO members traditionally have a pacifist tendency, but I was speaking the context of the hypothetical war that was proposed in the link Kaitzilla provided. In that scenario, yes, we would initially lose the Baltics, but that is ultimately irrelevant as the Russians would have absolutely zero ability to hold onto the Baltics once NATO fully mobilized (which wouldn't really take as long as some think). And in the time it takes to mobilize, NATO would be waging economic war against Russia. And you know deep down, that the US and Western European nations have the ability to economically ruin just about any nation on the planet if they really set their minds to it. So in this hypothetical scenario, it would be "Congratulations Russia! You took the Baltics and drove the West out. But now your people are condemned to lifelong poverty and starvation, your currency is worthless, and any significant infrastructure you had has been bombed into a smoldering crater. But hey, at least you showed those NATO dogs who's boss in the Baltics, right?"

Another thing you have to remember is that the US certainly isn't above playing dirty to defeat an enemy. You can bet we would be covertly arming, funding, and training every rebel group that has sworn themselves to be an enemy of Russia. We would give the Chechens everything they need to carry out all sorts of terroristic mayhem in Russian cities.

 

[Phrossack]

No, our Pacific allies wouldn't invade Russia, they would just harass them enough to keep them from bringing the full might of their military to bear against NATO in Europe.

And the US's non-NATO allies would get involved if the US asked, because refusing such a request would make the US extremely disinclined to continue protecting them from their enemies as well. That's kinda how alliances work. You go fight alongside your allies when they ask you to, even if you don't want to. Either that, or you withdraw from the alliance.

In a war with Russia, our Pacific Fleet would do most of the heavy lifting in the Pacific theatre with our Pacific allies providing mostly logistic support and harassing Russian forces wherever they can. The only Pacific ally that would have any kind of major troop deployment alongside the US would probably be Australia. I do agree though that any action in the Pacific would be minor in comparison to what would be going on in Europe, since any action against Russia in the Pacific would only serve the purpose of logistic disruption and keeping Russian forces divided.

And I get that NATO members traditionally have a pacifist tendency, but I was speaking the context of the hypothetical war that was proposed in the link Kaitzilla provided. In that scenario, yes, we would initially lose the Baltics, but that is ultimately irrelevant as the Russians would have absolutely zero ability to hold onto the Baltics once NATO fully mobilized (which wouldn't really take as long as some think). And in the time it takes to mobilize, NATO would be waging economic war against Russia. And you know deep down, that the US and Western European nations have the ability to economically ruin just about any nation on the planet if they really set their minds to it. So in this hypothetical scenario, it would be "Congratulations Russia! You took the Baltics and drove the West out. But now your people are condemned to lifelong poverty and starvation, your currency is worthless, and any significant infrastructure you had has been bombed into a smoldering crater. But hey, at least you showed those NATO dogs who's boss in the Baltics, right?"

Another thing you have to remember is that the US certainly isn't above playing dirty to defeat an enemy. You can bet we would be covertly arming, funding, and training every rebel group that has sworn themselves to be an enemy of Russia. We would give the Chechens everything they need to carry out all sorts of terroristic mayhem in Russian cities.

That's the thing, though--I really don't think that a Russian invasion of Estonia would result in general war with full-scale mobilization and a Pacific theater. Both sides would probably want to contain the conflict. I can't see most of NATO being willing to start a full-scale war with a nuclear power over Estonia. If it were conventional, it might just be limited to the Baltic, and once Russia took it over most of NATO would probably see it as a fait accompli and accept its loss. It would take a while to mobilize a force capable of liberating the Baltic and all the while the Russians would be digging in. Retaking it would be costly, and frankly, I don't trust most of NATO to be willing to accept those costs. The Poles would want to fight but not without support, the Germans would have no stomach for any kind of fighting anywhere, and the others are far away enough from Russia to feel like they could do nothing and still not be threatened.

I doubt that this scenario would happen, but since a Ukraine-style Russian-backed rebellion wouldn't work in Estonia (too much political stability, not enough heavy weaponry for the rebels to take, impossible for Russia to supply armor and artillery to the rebels with any kind of discretion, the presence of a large NATO contingent, etc.), a conflict that got hot would probably be an invasion. Russian courts find that granting independence to the Baltic states was illegal, some border incidents flare up, some NATO officials make careless comments about being unwilling to make war if the Baltic were attacked, and Putin could probably find some excuse. Unlikely, but three years ago, not many people seriously believed that a European country would be invaded and have its territory annexed, either.

 

[red_elk]

NATO won't risk nuclear war, attacking Russia over Baltic States.
And Russia will not attack Baltic States for exact same reason.

We would give the Chechens everything they need to carry out all sorts of terroristic mayhem in Russian cities.

Well, nobody have doubts that US will sponsor terrorism if needed.

 

[Phrossack]

NATO won't risk nuclear war, attacking Russia over Baltic States.
And Russia will not attack Baltic States for exact same reason.

That neither side thinks the Baltic is worth nuclear war might seem like it makes war less likely, but I think it would make it more likely. Because both sides don't want nuclear war, and both are aware that the other doesn't think the Baltic is worth it, I think Putin, provided with a suitable opportunity, could decide to start a conventional war limited to the Baltic, confident in the knowledge that as long as nobody's invading Poland or Russia, nobody's going to launch the nukes, because nobody feels threatened enough to do so.

 

[Commodore]

Well, nobody have doubts that US will sponsor terrorism if needed.

As would any nation with the capability to do so. Let's not pretend that we all haven't engaged in a little state-sponsored terrorism at some point in our respective nations' histories.

I also don't knock nations that engage in such behavior since warfare isn't about fighting fair, it's about taking away your enemy's ability to resist before he can take away yours. And if that means completely destabilizing that enemy's political, social, and economic structures, then so be it. Show me a nation that plays by all the rules in war, and I'll show you a nation that will get quickly and soundly defeated by its enemies.

 

[red_elk]

That neither side thinks the Baltic is worth nuclear war might seem like it makes war less likely, but I think it would make it more likely. Because both sides don't want nuclear war, and both are aware that the other doesn't think the Baltic is worth it, I think Putin, provided with a suitable opportunity, could decide to start a conventional war limited to the Baltic, confident in the knowledge that as long as nobody's invading Poland or Russia, nobody's going to launch the nukes, because nobody feels threatened enough to do so.

Both sides pretend to be crazy enough to use nuclear weapons in right circumstances. And both sides have to take into account even tiny possibility that it will happen. Baltic states simply are not worth it, there's almost nothing to gain, and their population is not much keen on returning to Russia. So, unless they do something really stupid, like placing US ballistic missiles on their territory, they are safe.

Ideally, if they kept neutrality, gave proper status to Russian language and softened their rhetoric a bit, Russia would pay attention to them about as much as it does to Mongolia.

 

[Agent327]

Neutrality is irrelevant. The Baltic states do not pose a threat to Russia, so if the Kremlin refrains from such actions as abducting Baltic citizens, Baltic states won't get jittery and there basically is no problem period. If Russian politicians are 'worried' about Russian citizens abroad there are more useful ways to deal with such occasions. The fact that the Kremlin currently sees no problem with harassing various smaller states on its borders is sufficient justification alone for a continued NATO. In short, this perceived threat to Russia is the result of the Kremlin's own 'adventurous' policies towards the Baltic, Georgia and Ukraine.

 

[Yeekim]

Ideally, if they kept neutrality, gave proper status to Russian language and softened their rhetoric a bit, Russia would pay attention to them about as much as it does to Mongolia.

I don't want to derail the thread with an n-th debate on language, so I'll just say that Russian has constitutionally protected status in Ukraine, as well as official regional language in half the country.

The whole language issue is nothing but a red herring.

We tried the whole neutrality thing last time around, didn't work out too well.

 

[Kyriakos]

You ever lived in Germany? Gotten to know Germans? Learned German? Read about Germany? Not let your national chauvinism get in the way of noticing the fact that war guilt is one of the central pillars of German culture and that it has done more than probably any other country in history to face up to its past while most other countries prefer to ignore and justify their atrocities at the same time?

No?

Didn't think so.

I must have clairvoyant powers then, cause i seem to keep having the idea that a fascist tabloid still sells millions of copies every day in germane Germania, in a parallel to stuff going on in analogously pristine Pristina.

And i have actually visited Germany, not that i have spent much time there. But i am pretty sure i have lived more in a foreign country than you have, so /wasaboutism.

 

[Farm Boy]

Wouldn't China be somewhat interested if Russia decided to pay Ukraine level attention to Mongolia? I've been wondering what the population pressures on the east are going to be when the PRC's economy actually slows down. Big expanses of lightly-populated land is kinda the historical go-to for densely industrialized economies that want to grow.