Is there any point in keeping NATO around?
- Thread starter Godwynn
- Start date
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
Just because they are hysterical about the clearly non-existent Russian menace, that means the rest of Europe should continue to be so as well?
Or do they also have neo-Nazi groups that persecute large groups of people with Russian ethnicity without any repercussions, as what clearly occurred in Ukraine?
It is ironic that you even mention the US in that sentence, since it is really the only country which continues to practice global imperialism and hegemony on a vast scale. Yet nobody seems to want to form a coalition to stop it other than perhaps a few Muslims.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
This "non-existent menace" is fighting a war in Europe against a sovereign nation. Of course neighbouring nations not belonging to NATO are going to start thinking about joining.
Verbose
Deity
There's nothing non-existant about the Narva region, or the incursions of Russian military jets and surface ships along the coasts and airspaces of the Baltic states.
Not sure were the dismissive and deprecating attitude towards the Baltic states stems from. They're neither the US nor Russia. They are looking for collective security against Russia however, since that's entirely relevant. Russia is a state that threatens its neighbours with military consequences on a semi-regular basis at this point. You might not notice, but then you're not in the neighbourhood.
... or similar incursions of NATO aircraft and vessels near Russian coasts and airspace.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Which is a good enough in my eyes justification for Russia to join a defensive alliance of some sort.
Much like such incursions are good enough justification for those countries to join a defensive alliance of some sort, like say, NATO.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
Who started the so-called "war", and for what reasons?
Do you think Russia should have just stood by while the basic human rights of so many with Russian ethnicity were being openly violated? The vast majority of people in the areas under question are ethnic Russians who no longer desire to be openly persecuted by their own government. Can you blame them?
You mean they are doing exactly the same thing that NATO does every day? Performing "incursions" into areas that aren't actually owned by any nation?
As though the Cold War stll exists, and that Russia has any intention whatsoever to create another buffer to protect it from the next world war.
Russia clearly poses no actual threat to anybody. If they did really invade any country with a force substantial enough to be any real threat to its sovereignty, a coalition of other nations would stop it in a matter of days regardless of what NATO decided to do.
Wouldn't it be better to stop creating alliances against each other and to start creating common security structures instead? With the current balance of power, NATO existence looks more like attempt to subdue Russia, instead of declared goal of containment.
Sure, Russia can turn to the East and seek partnership with China - it is already doing this. But neither Russia nor the West benefits from confrontation between each other.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
Ironically, the notion of Russia joining NATO has been floating around for years now. Yet any consideration of their membership continues to be blocked by those still fighting the Cold War over 25 years after it ended.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
In the end what Russia is doing was bound to push non-NATO countries towards NATO. Whether Russia was legally right to do what they're doing (answer: nope) or not doesn't matter in the context of "This is bound to push countries towards NATO".
Perhaps, but when you're a non-aligned state in the region, you're going to watch out for your interests and join an alliance, when stuff like this starts happening to your neighbours.
Who started the so-called "war", and for what reasons?
Do you think America should have just stood by while the basic human rights of so many Iraqis with Kurdish ethnicity were being openly violated? The vast majority of people in the areas under question are Shi'a who no longer desire to be openly persecuted by their own government. Can you blame them?
Verbose
Deity
Have you looked at the navy and air assets of the Baltic states? Impressed?
It threatens its neighbours with military consequences of this or that choice or policy regardless. Particularly the much smaller neighbours.
There is NO strategic depth to say Estonia. If Russia rolls in, it's over i hours, and it's not a matter of stopping it. It's instantly a matter of forcibly evicting the Russia army.
But that kind of evintuality is not necessarily what most worries the Estonians. It's rather that wonderful concept known as "strategic incertitude". If Russia threatens Estonia, effects may include thinks like baissing stock markets, increased interest rates etc. Estonia pays a price merely for being unilaterally threatened by Russia, whether it's spurious or not (works for larger nations too), and the intention is to hamper Estonia and force to factor in Russia having a "strategic incertitude" button over it.
Threats create uncertanity, and Russia turns it off and on. Remove the NATO guarantees, and that become considerably more effective towards the Baltics.
Tahuti
Writing Deity
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,492
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.
Because, you know, Russia is helpfully fighting IS and not aiding Syria. Oh, wait...
Such a typically ignorant Dutch response... But then again, the Netherlands are hardly contributing to NATO either these days. They only care when an airplane full of Dutchmen gets shot down over a warzone. Oh, was there a war down there? This is what you get when 'not caring.'
Such a typically ignorant Dutch response... But then again, the Netherlands are hardly contributing to NATO either these days. They only care when an airplane full of Dutchmen gets shot down over a warzone. Oh, was there a war down there? This is what you get when 'not caring.'
Tahuti
Writing Deity
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,492
Well, I'm on the side of the 'it was the airliners fault too'.
The irony is that we have been always present in NATO missions a sub-par equipped army. In spite of 1672, 1795, 1830 and 1940, we never seem to learn.
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?
Tahuti
Writing Deity
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,492
Well, a number of carriers refused to fly over the Donbass region out of fear of getting shot at by accident before the MH17 disaster, as the possibility that such a risk existed was well known.
Similar threads
