Is there any point in keeping NATO around?

[REDY]

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.

I have not hard feelings againist Armenia, it was just only respectable country in crew while its leaders are still needed to be bribed. Kazakhstan and Belarus will probably end same as Ukraine sooner or later when the godfathers will go to pension and you will stay in same phobia.

 

[warpus]

There's nothing to gain for Russia in making war in Ukraine either, and yet it's there now.

Yeah. I mean of course the difference is that there is a significant ethnic Russian minority in Ukraine, but yeah, you're right, if you had asked someone a couple years ago about the possibility of Russian soldiers fighting a war in/vs Ukraine, it would have sounded very unbelievable. But here we are.

Things have changed and other countries in the region have taken note.

 

[red_elk]

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.

First of all, I'm sure there were no threats of "military consequences" made by Russia to Sweden. Much less expressed by ambassador, who is in no position to make such statements. May be I have too good opinion about it, but it's simply not the level of Russian diplomacy.

About increased military activity in Baltics, it is increased from both NATO and Russia. And it is obvious that Russian military activity is directed against NATO, but not neutral countries. If Sweden sees threat from Russia only and doesn't see it from NATO, well, that's a pity, but measures taken to convince anybody that we are not going to attack them have to have their limits too. If they have particular concerns (for example about flights of military aircraft), they should express and discuss them with Russia. But if they want us to adjust foreign policy in order to calm down their fears, that's probably too much to ask. There are legitimate and not legitimate concerns, and if we will follow all advises of our neighbors, next time they'll ask us to disband half of our army, otherwise they will be afraid.

TL;DR Thing is, if they see military threat from Russia because of Crimea "invasion", where 2 people died, and don't see threat from USA which killed several hundreds of thousands people in last years, there's not to much we can do to persuade them.

I have not hard feelings againist Armenia, it was just only respectable country in crew while its leaders are still needed to be bribed.

I always thought if country leaders need to be bribed, such country is not much respectable, but may be it's just me.
Armenian leaders don't need to be bribed, they need Russia more than Russia needs them.

 

[red_elk]

Ok, I found the exact statement with "threats":

On Thursday a Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman said Sweden's admission to NATO "would have military, political and foreign policy consequences that would require indispensable response measures from the Russian side."

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/...o-explain-threats-over-nato-entry/530026.html

So, first, the statement was made by Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, not ambassador.
And second, from statement it's clear that it's Russia who will suffer military consequences of Swedish action, not vice versa.

 

[warpus]

"Swedish membership in Nato would have politico-military and foreign policy consequences, and would require retaliatory measures from Russia,"

A military power such as Russia speaking of military consequences and retaliatory measures - This is exactly the sort of rhetoric that is driving countries to NATO. You might not think of it as a threat and can argue that aspect of it all you want, but Sweden took it as a threat, it looks like a threat to me too, and so of course it is going to push them even closer into the NATO camp.

That's what I'm talking about, Russia wants it both ways - it doesn't want any more countries to join NATO, but it seems to be doing everything in its power to push countries towards it anyway. It's a very silly strategy.

 

[red_elk]

That's what I'm talking about, Russia wants it both ways - it doesn't want any more countries to join NATO, but it seems to be doing everything in its power to push countries towards it anyway. It's a very silly strategy.

I believe I have addressed this in my post above - if some countries consider Russia a bigger military threat than USA, despite all events of past 20 years, then they will probably consider us a threat always and regardless of what we do.

It is preferable for us if they stay neutral, but it's not a question of life and death. If Sweden decides to join NATO at all cost, of course Russia won't stop them and both countries will have to pay for Swedish false sense of security.

 

[warpus]

I believe I have addressed this in my post above - if some countries consider Russia a bigger military threat than USA, despite all events of past 20 years, then they will probably consider us a threat always and regardless of what we do.

Hopefully your leaders do not look at the situation like this, because that's not at all why countries like Sweden are considering joining the alliance.

I'm sure they understand, but are stuck to their strategy for geopolitical and political (at home) reasons.

 

[red_elk]

Hopefully your leaders do not look at the situation like this, because that's not at all why countries like Sweden are considering joining the alliance.

Wait a second, you think Sweden consider joining NATO not because it feels threatened by Russia?
Why then?

 

[FriendlyFire]

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

Why the cross border abduction(s) / kidnapping and fake charges and lies ?
Why the border violations ?

 

[Agent327]

Wait a second, you think Sweden consider joining NATO not because it feels threatened by Russia?
Why then?

I'm fairly certain Portugal didn't join NATO because it felt 'threatened by Russia'. Perhaps your whole idea of NATO being an 'anti-Russian alliance' is just plain wrong. You might consider that possibility.

 

[Tahuti]

I'm fairly certain Portugal didn't join NATO because it felt 'threatened by Russia'. Perhaps your whole idea of NATO being an 'anti-Russian alliance' is just plain wrong. You might consider that possibility.

"[The goals of NATO are] to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down."

-Lord Hastings Ismay, 1st secretary general of NATO

 

[Agent327]

Yes, and we also need to feel sympathy for present day Russia because what long dead Russia did (or didn't) do about the old French-German miltary competition, don't we? Oh wait, they already sorted that out all by themselves post WW II, didn't they?

 

[Verbose]

Wait a second, you think Sweden consider joining NATO not because it feels threatened by Russia?
Why then?

Baltic states, Kaliningrad, Gotland. Connect the dots.

IF for whatever reason Russia and NATO drifts into conflict over something involving Narva, Latvia, Kaliningrad etc., whether involving the Baltics, the Poles, both or some oher constellation, the strategic situation in the Baltic says odds are VERY low on Sweden being left out. Mostly because whomever controls Gotland decides whether the Baltic states or the Kaliningrad exclave are at all defensible.

Swedish fears, as they are, occur over the situation in the Baltic states, and go back to the dangerous Russian policy declaration of giving itself a unilateral "right" to intercede on other countries based on how the Russian political leadership interprets the situation, including who is Russia enough here.

As long as that was simply a policy statement, worrying as that might be, it was mostly shrugged off and Russia and the EU continued business as usual.

But then we have had first Crimea and then eastern Ukraine.

This is about collective security, and the reduction of uncertanity. At some point removing some of the uncertanity about what stance Russia might or might not take by joining NATO becomes reasonable. Not least since NATO comes with security guarantees that Sweden currently lacks altogether. The Cold War was a funny period in that sense, since Sweden wasn't part of NATO but HAD outright security guarantees from the US in the case of a Soviet attack. Currently it has literally nothing in the event Russia gets embroiled in something in Sweden's vicinity — which is what the real risk is assumed to be — not Russia attacking Sweden, but Russia sliding into conflict elsewhere, and Sweden becoming embroiled. Gotland provides the most dangerous scenarios.

And anyway, on sea and in the air over the Baltic, and now through diplomatic/political channels as well, Russia is already displaying behaviour and making pronouncements in Sweden's — among other's — direction that, whatever the hell it's supposed to mean, at the very least does not qualify as friendly.

 

[red_elk]

In other words, Sweden actually feels threatened by Russia. Because of hypothetical possibility of war between NATO and Russia in Baltics, and a chance that Sweden will get involved. What can I say, by joining NATO Sweden can indeed reduce strategic uncertainty - by turning hypothetical possibility of being dragged into NATO-Russia war, to almost 100% chance.

Edit:

dangerous Russian policy declaration of giving itself a unilateral "right" to intercede on other countries based on how the Russian political leadership interprets the situation, including who is Russia enough here.

Haven't heard about such policy, BTW. I suspect this might be another interpretation of EU tabloids, as it was with the threat from Russian ambassador. Which turned out to be neither a threat, nor coming from ambassador.

 

[Yeekim]

Probably this is the fundamental problem indeed.
That one particular country opposes its neighbors joining military alliance directed against it.

Allow me to apologize for having hurt your collective feelings by seeking security guarantees against Russia.

 

[Formaldehyde]

On Thursday a Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman said Sweden's admission to NATO "would have military, political and foreign policy consequences that would require indispensable response measures from the Russian side."

Who would have ever thought that a sovereign country might feel threatened by countries continuing to try to band together in a threatening manner over 25 years after the supposed threat no longer existed?

 

[r16]

this collective "security" thing is way overrated and works only when there is something to be done . NATO's might is so impressive when you need to start a war somewhere and there they were in their unvulnerable jets up there , the NATO's pilots and they took months to convince the Libyans who weren't exactly convinced that they should change sides . NATO's might was right there to start the Civil War in Syria , looming large in the imagination of those who were wont to rise . Well , NATO loves lots of dead people on the ground before coming in for good and then a Turkish jet got shot down . NATO is still watching from the side , having planted some batteries of Patriots on the border , claiming to be fully supportive of the Irresuction . And NATO keeps threatening if they don't like the way , this way or that way . Hence Germans didn't like Turkish reaction against the seperatists and they are going out , Americans claim their missiles need software upgrade and they have forgotten their USB memories back at home , while Spain claims ever ready to save us from them Russians . All in the benefit of mankind and stuff , if we shut up and the seperatists keep laying tons of explosives under roads to blow us up . For the time when the NATO's invulnerable jets finally come up .

so Russia is about to invade Gotland ? If they are ready to fight the WW III , they will fight the WW III . So unlikely to be deterred by the Swedes joining NATO . On the other hand shutting up about the action will simply encourage "tendencies" where Moscow sees control essential . The deal with Gorbachov was leaving the territorial presence of the Soviet Union free of encroachment ; with the Baltic republics in NATO the only thing Russians see is that the West never keeps any single promise unless you flaunt muscles . Not a bit , but all the time ...

 

[Yeekim]

Who would have ever thought that a sovereign country might feel threatened by countries continuing to try to band together in a threatening manner over 25 years after the supposed threat no longer existed?

I promise I'll write to my government and ask them to pursue policies less threatening to Russia.

 

[Verbose]

In other words, Sweden actually feels threatened by Russia. Because of hypothetical possibility of war between NATO and Russia in Baltics, and a chance that Sweden will get involved. What can I say, by joining NATO Sweden can indeed reduce strategic uncertainty - by turning hypothetical possibility of being dragged into NATO-Russia war, to almost 100% chance.

That's because NATO is a defensive alliance, and all relevant scenarios proceed from the fact that Russia makes claims of irredent population in the Baltic states. There no claims on Russia mirroring the Russian ones on its neighbours, which is why all scenarios predicate that IF someone moves across a border, it's going to be Russia. Russia is the revanchist power somehow unhappy with current borders here. Everyone else is hugging theirs.

And in case this has slipped everyone's mind, Sweden wasn't joining NATO and isn't joining NATO. (Yet get these decidedly unfriendly official Russian pronucimentos — those aren't seen as threatening as much as the situation in the Baltic states are however.)

There are arguments for joining NATO currently being ventilated in Sweden, and they are based on the need to respond and find safeguards from Russian actions in the last couple of years. That's about it.

And then the strategic situation in the Baltic is what it is, as far as what's located where is concerned. Ignore at own peril.

 

[Yeekim]

Fearsome Estonian troops during their annual training exercise "Amphibious attack on St. Petersburg and subsequent conquest of Leningrad Oblast".
Disclaimer: The photograph does not show entire might of Estonian armed forces. There actually was a third column which did not fit on the picture.