Is there any point in keeping NATO around?

[Farm Boy]

Ungh. I hope sports, porn, and video games'll take care of most of that. Maybe I'll take up hunting to learn him something.

 

[Hygro]

Ungh. I hope sports, porn, and video games'll take care of most of that. Maybe I'll take up hunting to learn him something.

I think this is spot on, and will work. Side effects (coincidentally correlated effects?) will include greater random mass killings.

 

[Farm Boy]

Probably only if he forgets how amazingly effective he is at flirting with 12-30 year old women with zero shame like he has now. I'm half scared he will forget, and wind up like I was, and I'm half scared he won't.

 

[Phrossack]

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.

How is suggesting that the Baltic states are threatened the same thing as "idolizing" them?

 

[warpus]

also rush to join NATO instead of proposing to eliminate all military-related Cold War relics altogether.

Lol @ the idea that post-communist Poland had any chance in hell to get NATO dismantled. Yeahhh...

 

[Kyriakos]

^Yet it is the former eastern-block states which have populations that think nato will save them if something bad happens. This is idolising nato, cause if any serious situation takes place it will likely do nothing.
Eg the US would never attack even a tiny nuclear power (best-Korea), nor did it do anything against Turkey when the latter invaded Cyprus. US won't attack Russia over Latvia or Estonia. In fact by now it wouldn't attack it even over Germany or any other country (and the nuclear powers are also immune from such attacks).

Basically nato does nothing unless it is all a move by a few oligarchs, and ultimately only US hawks matter there. And it is impossible for that alliance to again have a mandate for non-unilateral action against a country like it did against Iraq, later on Serbia, then eroding with Iraq2, then further eroding with Libya, and never making it to Syria.

Btw: if there were no nukes, we would be in WW3 already.

 

[Farm Boy]

We'd scrap for Europe, questions about the edges of it, we are still susceptible to being dragged along. The US has finally remembered, again, that nation building takes ~60 years of occupation to start working and that this is not so much fun. Syria is not Germany.

 

[warpus]

Kyriakos, Article 5 of the NATO constitution is legally binding - war against a member is war against them all.

 

[Kyriakos]

Kyriakos, Article 5 of the NATO constitution is legally binding - war against a member is war against them all.

Yes, so was the agreement between US and Ukraine. Legally binding doesn't mean it will happen, and afaik we are past that by now.

Moreover it is not realistic to expect many countries to go fight for Finland, Estonia, Latvia etc, much like it is not as if Finland would come help in the case of some war between Greece and Turkey (not that this can happen by now; Turkey is pretty much on a route to mass change-- to use a euphemism).

 

[Flying Pig]

Not so. Only an attack on a NATO country which takes place in Europe or North America is (in theory) legally binding under collective defence - hence the US didn't get involved in the Falklands. As ever, though, in the actual event there would be 'interpretations' of international obligations going around, conveniently tailored to justify whatever the countries in question wanted to do anyway.

EDIT: Cross-posted.

 

[red_elk]

Lol @ the idea that post-communist Poland had any chance in hell to get NATO dismantled. Yeahhh...

Poland to dismantle NATO? Hmm, no, I wasn't suggesting anything like that.

 

[Agent327]

Yes, so was the agreement between US and Ukraine. Legally binding doesn't mean it will happen, and afaik we are past that by now.

I'm not sure what agreement you are referring to. The US, on Ukraine's request, has agreed to send limited military aid and a number of advisors to train Ukraine military.

Furthermore, Ukraine is officially not at war; according to the Kremlin Russia is even 'at peace' with Ukraine and the civil war is an entirely internal matter of Ukraine's.

 

[warpus]

Poland to dismantle NATO? Hmm, no, I wasn't suggesting anything like that.

You said that instead of joining NATO, Poland should have pushed for its dismantling.

That would have lead to people laughing at Poland and Poland ending up not in NATO, which benefits us. So.. lose/lose.

 

[red_elk]

You said that instead of joining NATO, Poland should have pushed for its dismantling.

I said Poland, together with other small countries who allegedly don't fear/hate Russia, joined NATO at first opportunity. Instead of proposing to get rid of this Cold War relic, or at least not expanding it eastward. Like any country which don't afraid of its neighbors and not willing to have increased military tensions nearby, would do.

It's a bit strange that you interpreted my words as if I said that Poland had to single-handedly dismantle NATO.

 

[warpus]

I said Poland, together with other small countries who allegedly don't fear/hate Russia, joined NATO at first opportunity. Instead of proposing to get rid of this Cold War relic, or at least not expanding it eastward. Like any country which don't afraid of its neighbors and not willing to have increased military tensions nearby, would do.

It's a bit strange that you interpreted my words as if I said that Poland had to single-handedly dismantle NATO.

It would have had to have been a single-handed approach, since nobody else would have joined in our pointless crusade. So what would have happened is Poland saying: "Hey! NATO! We should disband that thing, eh?". Everyone would have then laughed at Poland, the baltic countries would have joined, Hungary and Czechia would have joined, and Poland would have been left out in the cold.

Brilliant.

 

[red_elk]

It would have had to have been a single-handed approach, since nobody else would have joined in our pointless crusade. So what would have happened is Poland saying: "Hey! NATO! We should disband that thing, eh?". Everyone would have then laughed at Poland, the baltic countries would have joined, Hungary and Czechia would have joined, and Poland would have been left out in the cold.

Brilliant.

Look, what you are doing now, is called shifting the goalposts and strawman attack. Both simultaneously in one post. While this kind of argument is not so uncommon here, I believed it is not your level.

No, I was not suggesting those stupid ideas which you are trying to attribute to me. For Poland to single-handedly "approach" anyone or start "crusade" against NATO. What I was talking about should be obvious from my post.

And rushing to join NATO was an indicator of Poland and Baltic States fear and hatred to Russia. Which you originally denied, before you switched to ridiculing the ideas which invented yourself and put into my mouth.

 

[warpus]

Listen, maybe there's a communication trouble here, because this is what you said:

instead of proposing to eliminate all military-related Cold War relics altogether.

And that would have never worked, because it would have essentially meant exactly what I outlined above - Poland would have suggested it, everybody else would have laughed at Poland, all the other countries who ended up joining NATO would have, and.. Poland would have been left out in the cold.

And rushing to join NATO was an indicator of Poland and Baltic States fear and hatred to Russia.

You think that Poland joined NATO to spite Russia? Because that is silly. We did it for our own self interests.

I won't deny that there was and is some fear. That is one of the reasons we joined.

 

[red_elk]

And that would have never worked, because it would have essentially meant exactly what I outlined above - Poland would have suggested it, everybody else would have laughed at Poland, all the other countries who ended up joining NATO would have, and..

You seem to interpret the word "proposal" as waving saber in front of US embassy, demanding "disband NATO now, or else...". In this case, Poland would indeed be ridiculed.

Proposing is expressing idea. Like the idea of Vaclav Havel, that Europe should have its own security agreement which doesn't rely on any superpower's protection. And that European countries thus should left both Warsaw Pact and NATO. Ridiculous? Maybe, but nobody laughed at that time.

Poland would have been left out in the cold.

Don't worry, Russia supplies gas to it reliably.

 

[warpus]

It wouldn't have been very politically or geopolitically viable.

Besides, Russian occupation just ended and we just got out of a military alliance - sounds like a good time to seek out another military alliance to replace it with. Yes, there was some fear there as well - Russia is right there, touching our borders. It was a good time to join NATO - Russia was weak and wouldn't have been able to complain too much.

 

[red_elk]

The fact that you refer to the membership in Warsaw Pact as "Russian occupation" speaks for itself about relation of Poles to Russia. Unless of course the use of the word was intended as mocking. Look for the definition of the word occupation in dictionary.