Support NeoGAF

[4Tran]

In a historical sense, NATO really is obsolete. It was a defensive alliance designed to deter the Soviet Union from attacking through the Fulda Gap and conquering West Germany. The threat of that ever happening disappeared when the Soviet Union dissolved, and there's no realistic scenario with that kind of military action happening again within the next fifty years.

However, NATO does more than that nowadays and it's become an extremely important instrument in cementing the power of the American Empire. Without NATO, the US will be greatly weakened both militarily and diplomatically. I can't imagine any president who understands how international relations works who would be interested in dismantling it. It'll be really interesting to see how much American power is going to be stripped away by Trump.

 

[KingSnake]

However, NATO does more than that nowadays and it's become an extremely important instrument in cementing the power of the American Empire. Without NATO, the US will be greatly weakened both militarily and diplomatically. I can't imagine any president who understands how international relations works who would be interested in dismantling it. It'll be really interesting to see how much American power is going to be stripped away by Trump.

That's true. NATO was a powerful instrument in creating a quite strong influence in the Eastern Europe for example and in secondary also a lot of profitable deals (including military acquisitions from US producers rather than European ones).

 

[Lexxism]

However, NATO does more than that nowadays and it's become an extremely important instrument in cementing the power of the American Empire. Without NATO, the US will be greatly weakened both militarily and diplomatically. I can't imagine any president who understands how international relations works who would be interested in dismantling it. It'll be really interesting to see how much American power is going to be stripped away by Trump.

I wonder someone from Republicans will make sure Trump know this and not to mess it up.

 

[nephilimdj]

I wonder someone from Republicans will make sure Trump know this and not to mess it up.

"Just fund insurgents, so they have to sign away neutrally like Macedonia without joining NATO, Mr. Trump"
Trump: But isnt that what we are claiming Russia might do

 

[appaws]

The truly "anti-war left" would recognize that an alliance like NATO prevents a lot of war by having most of the western world under one big alliance.

That is what NATO did for most of its existence. For some reason (what could it be?) the anti-war left was not all that enamored with it when it was explicitly anti-Soviet. Now, suddenly the anti-war left likes having "the western world" under one big alliance...?

There are many principled people on the anti-war left. But there is also a strong strain of simple partisanship. They are more likely to rally against war conducted by "conservatives" than by "liberals." Also, anti-interventionist activists like Justin Raimondo have reported trying to reach across the aisle to partner up with leftists on peace issues, and being rebuffed like untouchables.

Is it too much to ask that we teach children the purpose of NATO?

As 4Tran said above, the purpose of NATO does not exist anymore.

What is the new purpose? Defense of western Europe against the Russians? Bombing Libya or Serbia? The military hegemony of liberal democracy? It is just not clear anymore.

 

[TestOfTide]

That is what NATO did for most of its existence. For some reason (what could it be?) the anti-war left was not all that enamored with it when it was explicitly anti-Soviet. Now, suddenly the anti-war left likes having "the western world" under one big alliance...?

I just want to be clear that the point of my post was to say that far-left crazies like Jill Stein and Glen Greenwald aren't actually anti-war like they claim while moderate liberals like myself who actually know the nuisance of Foreign Policy are the actual anti-war people.

There are many principled people on the anti-war left. But there is also a strong strain of simple partisanship. They are more likely to rally against war conducted by "conservatives" than by "liberals." Also, anti-interventionist activists like Justin Raimondo have reported trying to reach across the aisle to partner up with leftists on peace issues, and being rebuffed like untouchables.

I agree that often has become partisan BS, but those who actually know what they are talking about know why NATO is important to keep intact.

As 4Tran said above, the purpose of NATO does not exist anymore.

What is the new purpose? Defense of western Europe against the Russians? Bombing Libya or Serbia? The military hegemony of liberal democracy? It is just not clear anymore.

I told you the main purpose of NATO: Keep most of the Western World under one big alliance so that we don't repeat the same mistakes that led to the first 2 world wars.

Part of it also keeping Russia at bay, yes, but the end result is still the same: Preventing WW3 by removing the biggest cause for the first 2 world wars.

And what do you mean by "military hegemony of liberal democracy"? Do you think that the US has military bases across the world just to wave its dick around? We have those military bases because other nations asked us to have their backs.

 

[Kasumin]

A 35% tax on import cars is fucking stupid. This isn't 1980.

No, it's 1929. Let's go Hawley-Smoot full charge!!!

Spoiler

Into another worldwide Depression

 

[gaugebozo]

In a historical sense, NATO really is obsolete. It was a defensive alliance designed to deter the Soviet Union from attacking through the Fulda Gap and conquering West Germany. The threat of that ever happening disappeared when the Soviet Union dissolved, and there's no realistic scenario with that kind of military action happening again within the next fifty years.

However, NATO does more than that nowadays and it's become an extremely important instrument in cementing the power of the American Empire. Without NATO, the US will be greatly weakened both militarily and diplomatically. I can't imagine any president who understands how international relations works who would be interested in dismantling it. It'll be really interesting to see how much American power is going to be stripped away by Trump.

NATO runs a scientific institute on the island of Corsica. They run really amazing summer schools because they can get the best scientific talent in Europe and North America to come for a two week trip south of France.

 

[20cent]

He says the Nato is obsolete because "it was created many, many years ago". What kind of logic is that even supposed to be?

"Donald Trump is obsolete because he was created many, many years ago"

Concepts, ideologies and products become obsolete at some points. Hating the guy is not a reason to deny logic and facts. Many political, technologies and thought systems disappear in the past. That's the way things move with time.


Oh and yeah, morons.

 

[Joni]

Concepts, ideologies and products become obsolete at some points. Hating the guy is not a reason to deny logic and facts. Many political, technologies and thought systems disappear in the past. That's the way things move with time.

Of course. They can become obsolete. Considering the New Soviet Union's take on the cold war, this doesn't hold true for the NATO.

Yeah but what's the actual process? Can he do it by executive order, or does it have to be passed by the senate/congress?

That is unclear. All I know is that the leaving nation has to alert the United States. Which will be awkward for a country that leaves after the United States.

 

[4Tran]

That is unclear. All I know is that the leaving nation has to alert the United States. Which will be awkward for a country that leaves after the United States.

Thankfully, we'll be spared from that ordeal because if the US leaves NATO, the alliance becomes effectively defunct.

 

[LizardKing]

This would be true if Russia didn't behave like Russia does. Which they do, so that makes this false.

However, Chinese aggression should probably be met with the same vigor by the west and it isn't.

 

[radios shipping overview]

The old purpose of NATO was to provide stability to Europe and defend it against the Soviet Union. The current purpose of NATO is to provide stability to Europe and defend it against a revanchist Russian Federation that seeks to expand its influence. Said Russia acts like the Cold War never ended. It's naive to treat the current Russia otherwise.

I am an anti-war leftist that recognizes the value of alliances and unions in preserving peace and stability. I don't want war with Russia, but I want its influence contained via existing power structures and soft power.

 

[petran79]

No, Germany spends 1.2% of its GDP on its military, while Greece spends 2.4% of it's GDP on it's own military. That's not spending "on NATO", it's spending on military forces in general.

2% is the NATO spending guideline. It recommends spending at that level to maintain a respectable military. But it's not hard and fast, nor is the alliance contingent on meeting that number. The Germans still have a much more powerful military than the Greeks do, and spend more overall, despite spending less proportionally.

Still they expect that military budget will increase by 96 billion

 

[Funky Papa]

If you thought that Trump was only trying to say that some NATO members should be "paying their share", you are dead wrong.

Here's what Trump's advisor Anthony Scaramucci just said at Davos:

At his panel, Scaramucci explained that ”what he was trying to say" is that NATO was designed to fortify European democracies. ”It was an offspring of containment policy," he told the audience.

But after its ”resounding" success, Trump wants to convince his NATO partners not only to pay their share of the bill, by increasing military spending, but also by reorganising the alliance, and ”rechartering" it.

Shockingly enough, Scaramucci also wants to repeal sanctions against Russia and is very keen to have a sit down with Putin to talk "deals".

 

[NHale]

Merkel is the leader of the free world at this point. I mean there is no question of that.

It's sad it has come to this situation where the EU can not consider the US a good actor anymore with the FSB asset in charge. The speculation is that most of the intelligence agencies are acutely aware of the situation.

The only thing that pains me is the thought of abandoning all of those Americans, a majority actually, who did not vote for this traitorous piece of shit.

Hopefully it doesn't come to that and the CIA does something but we're just hoping at this point.

The damage in the next 4 years if nothing happens is likely to be immense and the EU will probably look to China for partnership. Those ties are already being forged and will probably be accelerated.

I'm sure his comments about the One-China policy only makes it more likely that China moves towards EU partnership and not focusing on USA.

The problem here is what happens in the next German election. Don't tell me there isn't a chance Merkel loses (because that's what people said about the last 2 Putin major moves: Brexit and Trump).

Even if Merkel wins, the fact is that if Marine LePen wins at France the EU is dead.

Is Trump really able to dissolve NATO? Wouldn't that mean losing access to a lot of bases around the world that the uS military relies on to operate internationally? Putin might want it, but is the orange stooge really capable of following this wish for his master?

That's why he spent half an hour speaking with Portuguese President this week. Because he knows the military needs the Base das Lajes in the middle of the Atlantic to refuel their ships and airplanes in case of a world war. Our fucking President instead of telling him to fuck off, made a long conversation with him and then leaked to the press that Trump considers Portugal an essential partner in the future. How people continue to normalize this puppet is beyond me...

 

[Pomerlaw]

In a historical sense, NATO really is obsolete. It was a defensive alliance designed to deter the Soviet Union from attacking through the Fulda Gap and conquering West Germany. The threat of that ever happening disappeared when the Soviet Union dissolved, and there's no realistic scenario with that kind of military action happening again within the next fifty years.

You think Putin would mind fucking with Baltic Countries if they were not part of NATO?

Maybe Ukraine was a special case, but I don't trust him. NATO is a deterrent.

 

[anonymous_abc]

I'm sure his comments about the One-China policy only makes it more likely that China moves towards EU partnership and not focusing on USA.

The problem here is what happens in the next German election. Don't tell me there isn't a chance Merkel loses (because that's what people said about the last 2 Putin major moves: Brexit and Trump).

Even if Merkel wins, the fact is that if Marine LePen wins at France the EU is dead.

Le Pen winning is game over for the EU, I agree.
Merkel losing is a severe blow to the EU, depending on how things actually shake out in Germany.

That said both these things are significantly less likely than Trump or Brexit.
If Le Pen gets into the second round it is widely expected for everyone who is not a hard line FN supporter to support whoever stands against her. And I can only hope that the electorate in France has taken note of Trump and Brexit in regards to being complacent and just expecting the best.

The situation in Germany is more complex, but overall the decisions is not one of a simple majority. The AFD will almost definitely get into parliament, but in order to actually have any shot at disrupting the status quo they would need an unimaginable electoral victory. They will end up with +-15% of the vote share and the proportional amount of parliamentarians. Even if they double that which is in the realm of possibility but highly unlikely they would have 30% of parliament and you can expect everyone else to band together to stand against them.
Beyond the AFD things get more complicated. I cannot see any realistic scenario where Merkels conservative party isn't (by far) the largest party in parliament. There is little to no chance for the social democrats to even come close. And all other parties will be glad to get beyond 10-15%.
Whatever happens in Germany the coalition government will in all likelihood continue to be inherently pro EU. It will probably be another large coalition between the conservatives and the social democrats, where they might need a third junior party to get a majority. The only two options being the greens and the liberal democrats, both heavily weighted pro EU.
There just isn't really any other option in the cards. a progressive left coalition will likely not have the necessary numbers and is even less likely to find the guts to form a coalition. And no one will go into coalition with the AFD, no matter how large their vote share is, and them getting beyond 50% is beyond the realm of fantasy. It really does not compare to Trump or Brexit in its likelihood.

 

[appaws]

And what do you mean by "military hegemony of liberal democracy"? Do you think that the US has military bases across the world just to wave its dick around? We have those military bases because other nations asked us to have their backs.

I mean that the western democracies want to continue their military hegemony over the world, so they (we?) can do things like remove tin-pot dictators that we don't like or go to war to protect the flow of fossil fuels, or choose sides in regional conflicts and bomb the other side for reasons. Fuck that.

Even if I give you that other countries "asked us" to wave our dick around, I still want to stop waving our dick around, put it back in our pants and actually have the "peace dividend" at home that was discussed in the early 1990s. That may be in the form of massive infrastructure spending, or socialized medicine, or tax cuts. I don't care. Because it is both moral and economical for us to MYOB.

(I am paraphrasing something I heard here, I didn't make it up) Why do 300 million Europeans need us to defend them from 200 million impoverished Russians with an economy smaller than the Netherlands. Why does South Korea need us to defend them when they have double the population and a 10-fold bigger economy than the North?

 

[appaws]

You think Putin would mind fucking with Baltic Countries if they were not part of NATO?

Maybe Ukraine was a special case, but I don't trust him. NATO is a deterrent.

That's just it though. The Baltic countries were never in the sphere of NATO. Are we surprised that as we continue to push NATO right into the Russians' faces that they react badly to it?

We can't just declare that the entire world is our sphere of influence and then act aggressively right up to their border, in areas that have historically been under their control, including the overthrow of fairly elected governments we don't like in nations of key strategic importance to them. It's madness.

I never want to see American kids dying in wars started by a bellicose and arrogant elite, and I don't give a fuck whether they have an (R) or (D) after their name.

 

[Pomerlaw]

That's just it though. The Baltic countries were never in the sphere of NATO. Are we surprised that as we continue to push NATO right into the Russians' faces that they react badly to it?

We can't just declare that the entire world is our sphere of influence and then act aggressively right up to their border, in areas that have historically been under their control, including the overthrow of fairly elected governments we don't like in nations of key strategic importance to them. It's madness.

Who's that "we"? Countries choose to join NATO or not freely. So you think they should just not join because that makes the Kremlin unhappy? If they join NATO is mainly because they don't trust Moscow and they remember who crappy it was back then.

As for Ukraine, you seem to buy the whole CIA conspiracy, the Putin version. Honestly I don't know what is true or not in this case but I remember the protests. Ukrainians seemed to me ready to come closer to Europe, not Moscow.

I understand this is geopolitics and Russia is trying to stay relevant... I just don't see why we should give them the Baltics.

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

Because America has the largest military in the world and those countries have assurances that with cooperation and ties to our own country/ alliance, we will protect them from aggressors who want to use them.

You're acting like NATO is an aggressive force that expanded into unwilling countries. Maybe if Russia wasn't so fucking horrible and didn't invade it's neighbors to create it's own "sphere of influence" then there wouldn't have been such a rush to get on the NATO train.

You're parroting the same anti-NATO shit that Putin wants. Isolationism is the key to Russia and China expanding (and the US being very anti-China is perfect for Russia as well), it's what they dream of. But I'm sure you know that, you're parroting the same shit that I've read for years now in terms of anti-US sentiments when criticizing Russia under the guise "never wanting to see an American kids die", even though they are far more at risk with a POTUS who is basically saying NATO is obsolete and any attack on a NATO member (which US troops will be involved in) could easily be forgotten and forgiven.

NATO is the reason Europe has been in relative peace. You attack on nation, you will be attacked by the entire alliance. Nobody fucked with that for very obvious reasons.

 

[Frankfurter]

I'm sure his comments about the One-China policy only makes it more likely that China moves towards EU partnership and not focusing on USA.

The problem here is what happens in the next German election. Don't tell me there isn't a chance Merkel loses (because that's what people said about the last 2 Putin major moves: Brexit and Trump).

Even if Merkel wins, the fact is that if Marine LePen wins at France the EU is dead.

Of course there is a chance that Merkel loses - to a Social Democrats / Greens / The Left coalition (i.e. a coalition that is about as pro-EU as one could possibly be). That's the only somewhat reasonable possibility that the German chancellor after the September election is someone not named Angela Merkel. Well, unless you think the AfD has a shot at securing ~48% of the popular vote lol.
This is not comparable to Trump or Brexit, with the latter always being very close in polls and the former being a thing that just can't happen in the German political system.

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

That's just it though. The Baltic countries were never in the sphere of NATO. Are we surprised that as we continue to push NATO right into the Russians' faces that they react badly to it?

We can't just declare that the entire world is our sphere of influence and then act aggressively right up to their border, in areas that have historically been under their control, including the overthrow of fairly elected governments we don't like in nations of key strategic importance to them. It's madness.

I never want to see American kids dying in wars started by a bellicose and arrogant elite, and I don't give a fuck whether they have an (R) or (D) after their name.

You are looking at this irrespective of context. Baltic nations were in the Eastern Bloc and faced a generation of instability and disproportionate economic turmoil. Then the USSR fell. Now, with independence, Baltic states are moving from the vacuum of alliances to pushing for a more stable future with cooperation with the EU and under the protective bubble of NATO. They see Russia's economy tanking, a dictator in Putin and instability being subservient to Russia again. On the other side the EU has trended positively, has free traded and movement and has a single market for their economies. Between the two trajectories it's pretty clear why they are seeking stability over Russia.

NATO is not expanding due to antagonism, it is countries seeking stability and to protect stability and sovereignty under the NATO umbrella. These days it's not *just* NATO but defense treaties and alliances that keep global stability in check. The fear of escalation and MAD have us in a place where it has been the most peaceful in human history. Casualties in conflicts are going down, no industrial power has gone to war with another since the WWs.

This era of general peace is not without flashpoints or smaller conflicts but so far the need for national militaries has decreased, the need to expand or annex through force is gone. The maps haven't changed in any meaningful way since WW2. NATO and by extension American hegemony is a direct cause of this state.

 

[Evolution of Metal]

We can't just declare that the entire world is our sphere of influence and then act aggressively right up to their border, in areas that have historically been under their control, including the overthrow of fairly elected governments we don't like in nations of key strategic importance to them. It's madness.

The USA didn't declare that. Independent countries asked for the membership in NATO.

Nobody is acting aggressively. There are no rapid militarizations of Baltics or anything. Compared to what kind of forces Russia has built up, Baltics have nothing.

Historically Alaska was under Russian control, why is it even relevant what was in the past? Historically Baltic countries were independent multiple times before Soviet/German invasions. Lithuania, as a country, existed before Russia.

Don't meddle with the election process of foreign nations. There were no CIA influence or some covert ops during the independence of Baltics. People decided that they don't want to be a part of the Soviet Union and that government allowed it to happen.

 

[4Tran]

You think Putin would mind fucking with Baltic Countries if they were not part of NATO?

Maybe Ukraine was a special case, but I don't trust him. NATO is a deterrent.

Why would Putin care about the Baltics? There's nothing of much strategic importance there, and it's not as if being NATO members would slow down the Russians if he really wanted to use naked aggression.

Who's that "we"? Countries choose to join NATO or not freely. So you think they should just not join because that makes the Kremlin unhappy? If they join NATO is mainly because they don't trust Moscow and they remember who crappy it was back then.

There's plenty of reasons for Russia's neighbors to join up with NATO - who wouldn't want a giant counterweight to play off your larger neighbor. However, it's decidedly much less in NATO's interest in allowing these nations to join in their alliance. They won't contribute much militarily, and it only opens up future vulnerabilities. Moreover, in doing so, NATO has set itself as an anti-Russia alliance. And so, it makes the conflict that it's ostensibly designed to prevent more likely to happen.

 

[Gutek]

Most of us rejected him, remember.

Sorry, no. Not enough people stood up against straight up racism, sexism, bigotry, anti-democratic rhetoric. This is one is on the American people.

 

[UberTag]

I'm sure his comments about the One-China policy only makes it more likely that China moves towards EU partnership and not focusing on USA.

The problem here is what happens in the next German election. Don't tell me there isn't a chance Merkel loses (because that's what people said about the last 2 Putin major moves: Brexit and Trump).

Even if Merkel wins, the fact is that if Marine LePen wins at France the EU is dead.

Man, there's no stopping Putin, is there? Has installed himself as permanent czar and overlord of Russia and is effectively de-stabilizing global powers one-by-one in service of his ends.

How long until the Soviet Union has all of their territory back and they're large and in charge with the U.S. ignoring any rebel claims to land and sovereignty the way they do in the West Bank?
5 years? 10 years?

 

[TestOfTide]

I mean that the western democracies want to continue their military hegemony over the world, so they (we?) can do things like remove tin-pot dictators that we don't like or go to war to protect the flow of fossil fuels, or choose sides in regional conflicts and bomb the other side for reasons. Fuck that.

Even if I give you that other countries "asked us" to wave our dick around, I still want to stop waving our dick around, put it back in our pants and actually have the "peace dividend" at home that was discussed in the early 1990s. That may be in the form of massive infrastructure spending, or socialized medicine, or tax cuts. I don't care. Because it is both moral and economical for us to MYOB.

(I am paraphrasing something I heard here, I didn't make it up) Why do 300 million Europeans need us to defend them from 200 million impoverished Russians with an economy smaller than the Netherlands. Why does South Korea need us to defend them when they have double the population and a 10-fold bigger economy than the North?

Except if the US stops acting as a global superpower, either China or Russia will take that role.

I don't know about you, but personally I'd rather that the global superpower be a democratic nation than either of those dictatorships.

 

[Pomerlaw]

Why would Putin care about the Baltics? There's nothing of much strategic importance there, and it's not as if being NATO members would slow down the Russians if he really wanted to use naked aggression.

If he doesn't care, then what is the fuss all about? Why does he hates NATO that much? Why his puppet in the white house and all the parties he is helping anti-NATO?

If he does't give a fuck then it doesn't show at all.

 

[radios shipping overview]

That's just it though. The Baltic countries were never in the sphere of NATO. Are we surprised that as we continue to push NATO right into the Russians' faces that they react badly to it?

We can't just declare that the entire world is our sphere of influence and then act aggressively right up to their border, in areas that have historically been under their control, including the overthrow of fairly elected governments we don't like in nations of key strategic importance to them. It's madness.

I never want to see American kids dying in wars started by a bellicose and arrogant elite, and I don't give a fuck whether they have an (R) or (D) after their name.

The Baltics applied for NATO and EU membership in 2002. They clearly felt that it was in their interests as liberal democracies to ally with the rest of democratic Europe. Who's staying that we're pushing NATO in the Russians' faces? Putin is looking for easy territory to gain along Russian borders in some kind of bid to Make Russia Great Again - to help his popularity back home by appealing to nationalists.

NATO is not an aggressive organization. It's a mutually beneficial partnership that consolidates power and promotes stability. Its existence promotes peace. Russia opposes it because a strong and stable democratic Europe is bad for an authoritarian Russia run by gangsters and kleptocrats.

 

[TestOfTide]

Why would Putin care about the Baltics? There's nothing of much strategic importance there, and it's not as if being NATO members would slow down the Russians if he really wanted to use naked aggression.

First off the whole point of Russia retaking the baltics is to reestablish itself as a nation as powerful as the Soviet Union.

Also, the whole point of NATO is that Russia doesn't want to end up at war with every NATO ally.

 

[4Tran]

Man, there's no stopping Putin, is there? Has installed himself as permanent czar and overlord of Russia and is effectively de-stabilizing global powers one-by-one in service of his ends.

How long until the Soviet Union has all of their territory back and they're large and in charge with the U.S. ignoring any rebel claims to land and sovereignty the way they do in the West Bank?
5 years? 10 years?

That's never happening. Russia and China are politely fighting over who gets the most influence over Central Asia and China has been winning hard because they have a lot more money to fling around. Chinese businesses have also started investing a ton of money into Siberia. If it weren't for NATO and the Ukraine mess, these two would probably be much bigger rivals today.

If he doesn't care, then what is the fuss all about? Why does he hates NATO that much? Why his puppet in the white house and all the parties he is helping anti-NATO?

If he does't give a fuck then it doesn't show at all.

He thinks of NATO as a potential threat to Russia. The only reason he'd care about the Baltics is because NATO is deploying troops there. It's a bit of a contradiction in that the deterence force is actually escalating tensions.

First off the whole point of Russia retaking the baltics is to reestablish itself as a nation as powerful as the Soviet Union.

Also, the whole point of NATO is that Russia doesn't want to end up at war with every NATO ally.

Russia has been fairly judicious in the use of naked aggression, they've only done it three times while Putin has been in charge: in Chechnya, in Georgia, and in Syria. And of these, they could have punished Georgia much more than they did. There's no indication that Russia is trying to win back all of the old Soviet Union territories.

 

[gutter_trash]

the 2% quota is disbalanced IMO, especially if a country allows US military bases on their territory


Like the other guy said, Greece spends more in % than Germany but Germany's army is still more powerful


some others like Luxembourg a micro-state and too small to realistically attain 2%.

 

[Condom]

First off the whole point of Russia retaking the baltics is to reestablish itself as a nation as powerful as the Soviet Union.

Also, the whole point of NATO is that Russia doesn't want to end up at war with every NATO ally.

Hahaha, they're never going to be as powerful as the SU and they know. I see it more like taking back a bit of the shame of losing land like good empty hearted nationalists do.

 

[Toxi]

He thinks of NATO as a potential threat to Russia. The only reason he'd care about the Baltics is because NATO is deploying troops there. It's a bit of a contradiction in that the deterence force is actually escalating tensions.

So let me get this straight.

Russia isn't interested in the Baltics, but is afraid of NATO being a threat after the Baltics joined, even though NATO would only be a threat if Russia attacked the Baltics.

 

[4Tran]

So let me get this straight.

Russia isn't interested in the Baltics, but is afraid of NATO being a threat after the Baltics joined, even though NATO would only be a threat if Russia attacked the Baltics.

Putin is mostly just interested in NATO's buildup in the Baltic States. While NATO says that it's only to defend, this is the same NATO that used naked aggression to destroy Gaddafi's army. I'm certain that this is a token force that's incapable of offensive operations, but I'm not paid to be paranoid about that kind of thing. And of course Putin's going to talk it up because it allows him more political capital.

NATO is effectively playing into his hands for very little gain in this exercise.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Putin is mostly just interested in NATO's buildup in the Baltic States. While NATO says that it's only to defend, this is the same NATO that used named aggression to destroy Gaddafi's army. I'm certain that this is a token force that's incapable of offensive operations, but I'm not paid to be paranoid about that kind of thing. And of course Putin's going to talk it up because it allows him more political capital.

NATO is effectively playing into his hands for very little gain in this exercise.

When Putin calls NATO a "threat", that's code for "NATO is a threat to Russia's influence in the region". Russia's ability to strong-arm countries into doing what it wants consists of an implied military threat and economic leverage (usually through oil or gas). Half of this leverage evaporates with NATO accession. Vladimir and his senior staffers are under no illusion that NATO has any intention (or even capability) of invading Russia in any plausible near or mid term future scenario. The European NATO powers can barely protect their own borders, and all the world's missile defense systems combined could only intercept a small fraction of Russia's strategic arsenal.

 

[4Tran]

When Putin calls NATO a "threat", that's code for "NATO is a threat to Russia's influence in the region". Russia's ability to strong-arm countries into doing what it wants consists of an implied military threat and economic leverage (usually through oil or gas). Half of this leverage evaporates with NATO accession. Vladimir and his senior staffers are under no illusion that NATO has any intention (or even capability) of invading Russia in any plausible near or mid term future scenario. The European NATO powers can barely protect their own borders, and all the world's missile defense systems combined could only intercept a small fraction of Russia's strategic arsenal.

And NATO also knows full well that Russia has no intentions of invading the Baltic States (or Poland!). It's a little game that they play, except that everyone knows that NATO is far more of a threat to Russia than vice versa. And as long as they play these rhetorical games tensions are going to rise. It's facile to say that Russia is the sole bad actor, but I think there's plenty of blame to go around.

About ABM: the effect of ABM is not the ability to intercept all attacking missiles. That's just what the military tries to sell to the public. It's to make it so that the attacker doesn't know how many warheads to commit to any one target so that they have to fire multiple warheads at anything crucial. Instead of sending 300 warheads towards 300 targets, maybe you have to send 3 to each target and only go for 100 targets. This vastly weakens the strength of the attacker's bombardment and greatly improves the defender's position. Imbalances in power like this are more likely to lead to an actual war than a balanced scenario because generally neither party would engage in one unless one party feels weak enough that it has no choice.

 

[appaws]

That's never happening. Russia and China are politely fighting over who gets the most influence over Central Asia and China has been winning hard because they have a lot more money to fling around. Chinese businesses have also started investing a ton of money into Siberia. If it weren't for NATO and the Ukraine mess, these two would probably be much bigger rivals today.


He thinks of NATO as a potential threat to Russia. The only reason he'd care about the Baltics is because NATO is deploying troops there. It's a bit of a contradiction in that the deterence force is actually escalating tensions.


Russia has been fairly judicious in the use of naked aggression, they've only done it three times while Putin has been in charge: in Chechnya, in Georgia, and in Syria. And of these, they could have punished Georgia much more than they did. There's no indication that Russia is trying to win back all of the old Soviet Union territories.

Correct on all counts. The elites of the west are using fear mongering about Russia to promote a bellicose foreign policy agenda. Europe does not need America to defend it against Russia.

You're parroting the same anti-NATO shit that Putin wants. Isolationism is the key to Russia and China expanding (and the US being very anti-China is perfect for Russia as well), it's what they dream of. But I'm sure you know that, you're parroting the same shit that I've read for years now in terms of anti-US sentiments when criticizing Russia under the guise "never wanting to see an American kids die", even though they are far more at risk with a POTUS who is basically saying NATO is obsolete and any attack on a NATO member (which US troops will be involved in) could easily be forgotten and forgiven.

NATO is the reason Europe has been in relative peace. You attack on nation, you will be attacked by the entire alliance. Nobody fucked with that for very obvious reasons.

Don't accuse me of being disingenuous. I truly do not want to see American kids die in foreign adventures for bloodthirsty plutocrats. I have opposed every American intervention that has happened during my adult lifetime, and will continue to do so until I die, unless we are directly attacked by a state enemy.

I don't think of my sentiments as "anti-US." I am an American. But there is a foreign policy cabal at the top of both parties that is desperate to maintain constant war, and I just get very disappointed that those left-of-center who I have always thought of as principled allies on these issues seem to be buying into a destructive form of globalism.

 

[reckless]

And NATO also knows full well that Russia has no intentions of invading the Baltic States (or Poland!). It's a little game that they play, except that everyone knows that NATO is far more of a threat to Russia than vice versa. And as long as they play these rhetorical games tensions are going to rise. It's facile to say that Russia is the sole bad actor, but I think there's plenty of blame to go around.

About ABM: the effect of ABM is not the ability to intercept all attacking missiles. That's just what the military tries to sell to the public. It's to make it so that the attacker doesn't know how many warheads to commit to any one target so that they have to fire multiple warheads at anything crucial. Instead of sending 300 warheads towards 300 targets, maybe you have to send 3 to each target and only go for 100 targets. This vastly weakens the strength of the attacker's bombardment and greatly improves the defender's position. Imbalances in power like this are more likely to lead to an actual war than a balanced scenario because generally neither party would engage in one unless one party feels weak enough that it has no choice.

How is a defensive alliance a threat to Russia?

 

[4Tran]

How is a defensive alliance a threat to Russia?

When a defensive alliance goes and wipes out a government in Afghanistan and takes out another government in Libya, it's not really a defensive alliance any more. If you want to take a historical tact, the Franco-Russian alliance before World War I was ostensibly also defensive in nature. However, it was still a massive threat to Germany, and the tensions it caused led to one of the most bloody conflicts in human history.

 

[Toxi]

About ABM: the effect of ABM is not the ability to intercept all attacking missiles. That's just what the military tries to sell to the public. It's to make it so that the attacker doesn't know how many warheads to commit to any one target so that they have to fire multiple warheads at anything crucial. Instead of sending 300 warheads towards 300 targets, maybe you have to send 3 to each target and only go for 100 targets. This vastly weakens the strength of the attacker's bombardment and greatly improves the defender's position. Imbalances in power like this are more likely to lead to an actual war than a balanced scenario because generally neither party would engage in one unless one party feels weak enough that it has no choice.

We are talking about nuclear missiles, so it is irrelevant whether it is 100 or 300 targets.

The idea of anyone invading Russia is a joke.

When a defensive alliance goes and wipes out a government in Afghanistan and takes out another government in Libya, it's not really a defensive alliance any more. If you want to take a historical tact, the Franco-Russian alliance before World War I was ostensibly also defensive in nature. However, it was still a massive threat to Germany, and the tensions it caused led to one of the most bloody conflicts in human history.

...

Russia has been fairly judicious in the use of naked aggression, they've only done it three times while Putin has been in charge: in Chechnya, in Georgia, and in Syria. And of these, they could have punished Georgia much more than they did. There's no indication that Russia is trying to win back all of the old Soviet Union territories.

 

[reckless]

When a defensive alliance goes and wipes out a government in Afghanistan and takes out another government in Libya, it's not really a defensive alliance any more. If you want to take a historical tact, the Franco-Russian alliance before World War I was ostensibly also defensive in nature. However, it was still a massive threat to Germany, and the tensions it caused led to one of the most bloody conflicts in human history.

Well if you just ignore 9/11 with Afghanistan.
Libya was approved by the UN, all necessary measures is a pretty vague phrase.

The world is also a lot different when a country has nukes, especially when Russia has enough nukes to effectively ignore our missile defense systems.

Anyways NATO attacking Russia first makes no sense in any way and treating it like an actual possibility is just dumb. Russia on the other hand has been pretty clear in its aims to "protect Russians" wherever they are.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

And NATO also knows full well that Russia has no intentions of invading the Baltic States (or Poland!). It's a little game that they play, except that everyone knows that NATO is far more of a threat to Russia than vice versa. And as long as they play these rhetorical games tensions are going to rise. It's facile to say that Russia is the sole bad actor, but I think there's plenty of blame to go around.

Russia's primary foreign policy objective is to dismantle, divide or weaken NATO. One route to this is to present a fait acompli in the Baltic states equivalent to the Crimean invasion in 2014. A NATO failure to respond could be so devestating that the alliance would crumble. This scenario is conceptually plausible, if not highly likely, unlike a spontaneous and unprovoked invasion of Russia, which is 100% fantasy. Despite being the "target" of the alliance, Russia is the countrie least likely to be subject to aggression by NATO actors, because it's military forces and WMD stockpiles are utterly overwhelming in comparison to the trivial tasks of enforcing a no fly zone in Libya or deploying peacekeeping forces to Kossovo.

If by "sole bad actor", you mean "the only country that's ever done a bad thing", no of course Russia isn't the sole bad actor. But if you're talking about the current tensions between NATO and Russia in Europe, that's on Russia entirely. Their actions in Ukraine are the most shameless Land Grab in Europe since 1945 and their ongoing support for frozen conflicts in Europe and the Caucuses are shameful. There was low level tension and opposition for years, it's Russia that flared them up and solidified themselves as enemy #1 anybody in Eastern Europe who wants to be part of the European project.

About ABM: the effect of ABM is not the ability to intercept all attacking missiles. That's just what the military tries to sell to the public. It's to make it so that the attacker doesn't know how many warheads to commit to any one target so that they have to fire multiple warheads at anything crucial. Instead of sending 300 warheads towards 300 targets, maybe you have to send 3 to each target and only go for 100 targets. This vastly weakens the strength of the attacker's bombardment and greatly improves the defender's position. Imbalances in power like this are more likely to lead to an actual war than a balanced scenario because generally neither party would engage in one unless one party feels weak enough that it has no choice.

What you're describing is a secondary effect of ABM systems. They were not designed for that, it's simply one of their utilities because actually complete ABM systems are not possible/economically feasible. Russia has it's own ABM network, deployed as recently as the mid 90's, surrounding key targets. But we're not talking about 300 warheads, we're talking about 5000 warheads on short notice, and thousands more that could be dug up out of storage and stuck on a missile. An overwhelming arsenal, ABM or no.

 

[radios shipping overview]

I don't think of my sentiments as "anti-US." I am an American. But there is a foreign policy cabal at the top of both parties that is desperate to maintain constant war, and I just get very disappointed that those left-of-center who I have always thought of as principled allies on these issues seem to be buying into a destructive form of globalism.

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find people on either side of center who want actual war with Russia or who would agitate for regime change after America's last few disastrous adventures. The "Hillary wants WWIII" rhetoric before the election was a bunch of bullshit. Stability maintained through balance of power is important.

I'm not interested in discussing shadowy globalist cabals.

 

[4Tran]

We are talking about nuclear missiles, so it is irrelevant whether it is 100 or 300 targets.

It makes a big difference when it comes to the people who have to care about the capability of their nuclear deterrence. If your enemy has 1000 targets that must to be hit, and you have 2000 warheads, then you can feel comfortable about the efficacy of your deterrence. But if that same enemy puts up an ABM system then maybe you can only guarantee taking out 600 of those targets and you'll have to start worrying. This isn't fiction where it's all over as soon as the nuclear strike gets launched.

The idea of anyone invading Russia is a joke.

For the foreseeable future, that true. However it's not something that Putin can absolutely count on, so he must hedge his bets as a rational actor. Russia is not China in that NATO is station all the way across the world. And as NATO encroaches closer and closer to his borders, it's his job to worry more and more.

Well if you just ignore 9/11 with Afghanistan.
Libya was approved by the UN, all necessary measures is a pretty vague phrase.

That's the point, if you can construe your purely defensive alliance to launch offensive invasions, it's not really purely a defensive alliance any more. That's just propaganda talking.

Russia's primary foreign policy objective is to dismantle, divide or weaken NATO. One route to this is to present a fait acompli in the Baltic states equivalent to the Crimean invasion in 2014. A NATO failure to respond could be so devestating that the alliance would crumble. This scenario is conceptually plausible, if not highly likely, unlike a spontaneous and unprovoked invasion of Russia, which is 100% fantasy. Despite being the "target" of the alliance, Russia is the countrie least likely to be subject to aggression by NATO actors, because it's military forces and WMD stockpiles are utterly overwhelming in comparison to the trivial tasks of enforcing a no fly zone in Libya or deploying peacekeeping forces to Kossovo.

NATO has been setting itself up primarily as an instrument of the American Empire, and as an anti-Russia alliance. Of course Putin is going to want to dismantle it. The invasion of the Baltics to destabilize NATO is not quite as farcical as NATO using the Baltics as a staging ground to invade Russia, but it's pretty close.

If by "sole bad actor", you mean "the only country that's ever done a bad thing", no of course Russia isn't the sole bad actor. But if you're talking about the current tensions between NATO and Russia in Europe, that's on Russia entirely. Their actions in Ukraine are the most shameless Land Grab in Europe since 1945 and their ongoing support for frozen conflicts in Europe and the Caucuses are shameful. There was low level tension and opposition for years, it's Russia that flared them up and solidified themselves as enemy #1 anybody in Eastern Europe who wants to be part of the European project.

Bad actor as in a player that's responsible for ratcheting up tensions. Yeah, I can see Russia getting the brunt of that for their military adventures since 2014 in Crimea and Ukraine, but the bad blood has been getting worse ever since about 2008, and NATO was probably more at fault back then.

What you're describing is a secondary effect of ABM systems. They were not designed for that, it's simply one of their utilities because actually complete ABM systems are not possible/economically feasible. Russia has it's own ABM network, deployed as recently as the mid 90's, surrounding key targets. But we're not talking about 300 warheads, we're talking about 5000 warheads on short notice, and thousands more that could be dug up out of storage and stuck on a missile. An overwhelming arsenal, ABM or no.

What they're designed for is less important than what Russia's strategic command needs to worry about. Another thing to note is that a lot of Russia's rhetoric isn't primarily intended for the outside world - it can well be an excuse for Putin to grab more power for himself.

 

[Pomerlaw]

Russia has been fairly judicious in the use of naked aggression, they've only done it three times while Putin has been in charge: in Chechnya, in Georgia, and in Syria.

lol Putin is such a good guy.

Correct on all counts. The elites of the west are using fear mongering about Russia to promote a bellicose foreign policy agenda. Europe does not need America to defend it against Russia.

Ukraine is in Europe. What you are asking is appeasement for a guy who is a proven dictator. If Europe starts to play his game he will push and push until he has what he wants.

 

[Toxi]

It makes a big difference when it comes to the people who have to care about the capability of their nuclear deterrence. If your enemy has 1000 targets that must to be hit, and you have 2000 warheads, then you can feel comfortable about the efficacy of your deterrence. But if that same enemy puts up an ABM system then maybe you can only guarantee taking out 600 of those targets and you'll have to start worrying. This isn't fiction where it's all over as soon as the nuclear strike gets launched.

A single nuclear strike on a major city would kill millions of people and destroy that country's economy. We're talking hundreds of nukes, if not thousands.

Yes, the war would be fucking over. There is no remote possibility of any invasion ever being worth that cost.

 

[Pomerlaw]

A single nuclear strike on a major city would kill millions of people and destroy that country's economy. We're talking hundreds of nukes.

Yes, it would be fucking over. There is no remote possibility of any invasion ever being worth that cost.

Primary targets would be military to try to prevent a 2nd strike. Some military targets are indeed close to cities. Most nukes would be used on missiles silos, military ports and airports.

Directly nuking cities is a waste of nukes. But even then, as Japan and WW2 proven, countries can recover.

But you are right, the cost would always be way too much. No winners there.