Archaic here meant in regards to having a small landmass and three different nation-states in it. A bit like fief or dutchy-structure in late medieval times?
Is there any point in keeping NATO around?
- Thread starter Godwynn
- Start date
Archaic here meant in regards to having a small landmass and three different nation-states in it. A bit like fief or dutchy-structure in late medieval times?
Lohrenswald
世界的 bottom ranked physicist
How is that archaic or nonviable?
how is Russia not?
how is Russia not?
Phrossack
Armored Fish and Armored Men
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2008
- Messages
- 6,045
Europe is full of small but perfectly viable countries. Size doesn't factor into it. And I can't see how they're archaic in the least.
Really, all this talk about how the Baltic states shouldn't be independent is one of the reasons they joined NATO as soon as they could. Last time they were neutral, they were invaded and annexed without provocation.
Really, all this talk about how the Baltic states shouldn't be independent is one of the reasons they joined NATO as soon as they could. Last time they were neutral, they were invaded and annexed without provocation.
Tahuti
Writing Deity
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,492
"All of nationalism can be seen as a kind of collective narcissism." --Geoff Mulgan
Thats very true if one happens to by narcissist himself.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
I don't think that's a necessary prerequisite for nationalism being categorically a collective narcissism.
Tahuti
Writing Deity
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,492
Yet Russia is on the rise. International "Law" is being trampled upon, because there is no overarching agency that can effectively enforce it.
I was responding to Phrossack's idolisation of quant small nation-states and how it is so hilariously incompatible with his sig quote I posted again as reminder.
Anyway, Cameron stuck his nob in a pig's mouth.
Could it be the standard procedure for all the NATO leaders? No wonder we cant make Russia join....
Size doesn't matter.
It's simply because Russia is the citadel of virtue and spirituality in this world, and Baltic States were corrupted by decadent Western influence.
That would explain everything.
Yes, it's well-known that establishing a kleptocracy ensures virtue and spirituality, while decadent Western influence leads to errr... ummm... something.
I've never heard Russia wanting to join NATO.
There never was. International law deals with international issues, i.e. issues between nations. I'm not sure how Russia is on the rise: not economically at any rate.
Oh, you shouldn't believe everything you read in the tabloids.
Tahuti
Writing Deity
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,492
Not everything is economic. The EU is a whole surpasses the US, yet is politically weaker. Russia's influence is waxing. The longer the Anti-Russian sanctions continue while Putin survives, the more durable it proves.
Should keep in mind that in the past Russia was open to the prospect of being an EU member. It likely would have been one years ago, but the western powers (Germany/France/England) were not keen on having Russia become the nation with the most votes in the EU.
Personally i think that it would be viable. Of course Russia is massive, but it is not like there would be calls to invest in easternPoland Russia anyway, while the European part of Russia is roughly half of our continent and is entirely tied to european culture anyway.
Besides, it would be an important ally to the orthodox nations. (well, not Romania, but whatever
).
Not seeing how an actual EU (and not the thing we currently have) can survive as being a minor side in an alliance with the US. Let alone that the US cannot possibly play sole super-power for decades longer.
Personally i think that it would be viable. Of course Russia is massive, but it is not like there would be calls to invest in eastern
Besides, it would be an important ally to the orthodox nations. (well, not Romania, but whatever
).Not seeing how an actual EU (and not the thing we currently have) can survive as being a minor side in an alliance with the US. Let alone that the US cannot possibly play sole super-power for decades longer.
IIRC originally it was Gorbachev's proposal to work towards creation of united Europe from Atlantic to Ural mountains. In late 80-s we were naive enough to think that it's Soviet leadership who prevents us from allying with Europe, and once we get rid of communists in power, everything will be sorted out in 3-5 years. Warsaw pact and NATO will be disbanded, ideological and military confrontation will stop, and we will be good partners with EU. Of course we underestimated the level of fear and hatred (mainly from Baltics and Poland), as well as the fact that Europe doesn't have much control over NATO.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Yeah, you'll never believe the amount of fear and hatred we have for Russia in Poland. Every Tuesday for example is walk on Russian flags day.
No, I judge by constant demands of apologies (despite apologies were made in 90-s and we haven't heard your apologies in return), compensations, stuff like that. But I guess Germany is getting the same. As for fear, your rhetoric indicates that, and also rush to join NATO instead of proposing to eliminate all military-related Cold War relics altogether.
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,269
Noplace that doesn't have the US holding its peepee got rid of the Cold War relic military infrastructure. Dialed back, in some ways, but it's not like the world became a much less dangerous place because the two main groups of old and stupid men stopped shouting obscenities at each other quite so regularly. The young pups are plenty dumb themselves.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
And wanted so bad to have their turn.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
But Farm Dad I wanna play enemies!
Similar threads
