Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Revelation wrote:.JJJ wrote:We have discussed several times why the 2% GDP in defence is a red herring because, for starters, different countries have different ways of measuring what military spending is.
Military pensions and healthcare which is a significant part of US military spending are not defined as military spending in many European budgets. A lot of military R&D goes through Ministry of Industry instead of Defence.
Let's talk specific capabilities, pooling etc. rather than an arbitrary threshold.
It's not a "red herring" if it's the metric the NATO member countries all agreed to commit to.
Even if it's not the metric you want to use, the idea that the German Chancellor proposed an increase defense spending by 50% in one year is an admission that they have a lot of ground to make up with regard to defense spending.
GDB wrote:Then there was the annexation of the Baltic states in 1940, Poland got it from both Nazi Germany and Soviet Union in WW2, less well known is that Poland won a war against the USSR in the early 1920's, Stalin never forgot, or forgave that.
Under the cosh of the USSR in the Cold War.
This year marks the 90th anniversary of the USSR's deliberate mass starvation policy against Ukraine.
Wonder why the Baltics and Poland want to be EU and NATO members (being the former triggers Putin by itself, another real world rebuttal to the 'it's NATO's fault' line).
Result, two new NATO members, who were very long standing neutral nations.
Ukraine wants fast track EU and eventually NATO membership.
Yet somehow they are all wrong?
I don't buy it so don't buy that false equivalence line either.
JJJ wrote:It's used because it's easy to calculate but has loopholes the size of an aircraft carrier.
NATO was going in the right direction with pooling C-17 and AWACS assets. Just putting an arbitrary line in the sand will encourage discretionary expenditure with little added value.
https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-backtracks-on-defense-spending-promise-warns-about-delays-ukraine-war/Germany on Monday walked back its promise to swiftly raise defense spending to at least 2 percent of its economic output — breaching the key commitment made days after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to become a more serious military force.
Berlin also sought to play down internal warnings about delays to a flagship procurement of new fighter jets.
During a government press conference, Chief Spokesperson Steffen Hebestreit scaled down expectations for Germany’s defense spending, telling journalists that the 2 percent target would be missed not only this year, but also likely next year: “It’s still open whether that [goal] will be achieved” in 2023, Hebestreit said, adding that his “cautious expectation” was that Germany would still meet the target within this legislative period, which ends in 2025.
Kiwirob wrote:Vintage wrote:Kiwirob wrote:The fact that Russia's invasion of Ukraine didn't trigger an attack on Russia by NATO offers clear proof that Putin's (alleged) paranoia was baseless. But everybody knew that before Feb 24th. The simple fact is that Putin wants to go down in history as Puter the Great.Would that war have happened if NATO no longer existed or if it still did hadn't expanded to the east?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6UiEXrVrvg
It didn't trigger an attack for a simple reason Ukraine isn't a NATO member. Putin is going down in history as a bit of a dick, there's no doubt about that.
[/quote]Kiwirob wrote:The EU's expansion East is also problematicVintage wrote:In your opinion Putin has the right to tell other nations how they are allowed to conduct their business?
What do you think the US does ad nauseam?
Chances are if NATO was disbanded after the cold war ended and German reunification Putin may never have existed.
Kiwirob wrote:That's probably the most callous display of lack of concern for other people's suffering I've read on this forum. That's really over the top.Ukraine refugees aren't really an issue, most of them will return home once the fighting ends, those that remain will assimilate into there new countries very quickly, within a generation of so you won't notice them. Several hundred million Africans changes things far more dramatically than Russia invading Ukraine.
Kiwirob wrote:Newark727 wrote:Kiwirob wrote:The cold war ended, the reason for NATO's existence ended, it certainly didn't need to be expanded and European NATO countries didn't need to be dragged into Americas 9/11 wars. The biggest threat to European stability is not Russia it's the millions upon millions of people wanting to illegally migrate to Europe from Africa.
Russia just launched the biggest European war since 1945 and you're saying a defensive alliance against it has no reason to exist? Russia's actions created more than seven million new refugees in less than a year (https://data.unhcr.org/en/situations/ukraine} and you're saying that it's those other migrants that are the real threat to stability? Like, have you just been asleep since February or something?
Would that war have happened if NATO no longer existed or if it still did hadn't expanded to the east? The EU's expansion East is also problematic but for other reasons, the freedom of movement clause should have been suspended for a minimum 10 years before new members could take advantage of it. A friend of mine owns a medium sized business in Klaipeda, he wants to expand but there's no people anymore, Lithuania's population has dropped from 3.4m in 2004 to 2.6m today.
astuteman wrote:Kiwirob wrote:Newark727 wrote:
Russia just launched the biggest European war since 1945 and you're saying a defensive alliance against it has no reason to exist? Russia's actions created more than seven million new refugees in less than a year (https://data.unhcr.org/en/situations/ukraine} and you're saying that it's those other migrants that are the real threat to stability? Like, have you just been asleep since February or something?
Would that war have happened if NATO no longer existed or if it still did hadn't expanded to the east? The EU's expansion East is also problematic but for other reasons, the freedom of movement clause should have been suspended for a minimum 10 years before new members could take advantage of it. A friend of mine owns a medium sized business in Klaipeda, he wants to expand but there's no people anymore, Lithuania's population has dropped from 3.4m in 2004 to 2.6m today.
Bizarre question.
It's is absolutely clear that without NATO, Russia would have systematically reconstituted the USSR, and brought about, once again, the need for NATO.
And how? By the threat of nuclear weapons, and their huge armed forces.
And Europe demonstrably would have sat back and watched.
It mystifies me that those castigating the existence of NATO seem to be sublimely oblivious of the threat of Global Thermonuclear war.
THAT's why NATO exists.
Russia is STILL the owner of the largest nuclear arsenal in the world.
I'd also suggest that those proposing that Russia would have no chance even against the much reduced armed forces of Europe, even without US support, are commenting in hindsight. Before Ukraine, NOBODY thought that the huge Russian armed forces are the damp squib they have proven to be.
The best way to remove the need for NATO would have been for a progressive Russia to apply to join it, and the EU, after 1991.
But sadly they have chosen a different route.
As a post-script, it is perhaps worthy of the thought exercise around why the countries that have joioned NATO since 1991 have voluntarily elected to do so of their own volition.
Unless you can show otherwise, I don't believe NATO has ever had an expansionist policy.
Rgds
...I don't believe NATO has ever had an expansionist policy.
..
astuteman wrote:It's is absolutely clear that without NATO, Russia would have systematically reconstituted the USSR, and brought about, once again, the need for NATO.
And how? By the threat of nuclear weapons, and their huge armed forces.
And Europe demonstrably would have sat back and watched.
It mystifies me that those castigating the existence of NATO seem to be sublimely oblivious of the threat of Global Thermonuclear war.
THAT's why NATO exists.
Russia is STILL the owner of the largest nuclear arsenal in the world.
astuteman wrote:Kiwirob wrote:Newark727 wrote:
Russia just launched the biggest European war since 1945 and you're saying a defensive alliance against it has no reason to exist? Russia's actions created more than seven million new refugees in less than a year (https://data.unhcr.org/en/situations/ukraine} and you're saying that it's those other migrants that are the real threat to stability? Like, have you just been asleep since February or something?
Would that war have happened if NATO no longer existed or if it still did hadn't expanded to the east? The EU's expansion East is also problematic but for other reasons, the freedom of movement clause should have been suspended for a minimum 10 years before new members could take advantage of it. A friend of mine owns a medium sized business in Klaipeda, he wants to expand but there's no people anymore, Lithuania's population has dropped from 3.4m in 2004 to 2.6m today.
Bizarre question.
It's is absolutely clear that without NATO, Russia would have systematically reconstituted the USSR, and brought about, once again, the need for NATO.
And how? By the threat of nuclear weapons, and their huge armed forces.
And Europe demonstrably would have sat back and watched.
It mystifies me that those castigating the existence of NATO seem to be sublimely oblivious of the threat of Global Thermonuclear war.
THAT's why NATO exists.
Russia is STILL the owner of the largest nuclear arsenal in the world.
I'd also suggest that those proposing that Russia would have no chance even against the much reduced armed forces of Europe, even without US support, are commenting in hindsight. Before Ukraine, NOBODY thought that the huge Russian armed forces are the damp squib they have proven to be.
The best way to remove the need for NATO would have been for a progressive Russia to apply to join it, and the EU, after 1991.
But sadly they have chosen a different route.
As a post-script, it is perhaps worthy of the thought exercise around why the countries that have joioned NATO since 1991 have voluntarily elected to do so of their own volition.
Unless you can show otherwise, I don't believe NATO has ever had an expansionist policy.
Rgds
Kiwirob wrote:You seem to be the only one here to see it otherwise.Is it clear that that would have happened or are you just making assumptions you can’t possibly back up?
Kiwirob wrote:Is it clear that that would have happened or are you just making assumptions you can’t possibly back up?
Vintage wrote:Fresh news about Germany's defense allocation:https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-backtracks-on-defense-spending-promise-warns-about-delays-ukraine-war/Germany on Monday walked back its promise to swiftly raise defense spending to at least 2 percent of its economic output — breaching the key commitment made days after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to become a more serious military force.
Berlin also sought to play down internal warnings about delays to a flagship procurement of new fighter jets.
During a government press conference, Chief Spokesperson Steffen Hebestreit scaled down expectations for Germany’s defense spending, telling journalists that the 2 percent target would be missed not only this year, but also likely next year: “It’s still open whether that [goal] will be achieved” in 2023, Hebestreit said, adding that his “cautious expectation” was that Germany would still meet the target within this legislative period, which ends in 2025.
astuteman wrote:Ignorance?
It's based on having lived 60 years with the threat of Nuclear destruction, and 40 years of working in the defence industry has told me.
For a start the EU hasn't existed for 75 years.
I'm not having a go at the EU, but to deliver peace, you have to stop a war.
Thousands of years of history have demonstrated that the way you do that is through negotiation, but with a strong deterrent to back it up.
Out of interest, how old are you, if I might ask?
80% of the Turkish population is against Turkey being in the military alliance led by the United States, the Turkish Minister claimed. "The United States is a country running the most hostile and destructive policy towards Ankara," he stated.
The Turkish people have lately been showing sympathy for Russia and [Russian President Vladimir] Putin," Turkey's minister Ethem Sancak iterated, using a friendly tone for its ally Russia. This week, Turkey’s Patriotic Party also launched a nationwide campaign for Turkey to exit the North Atlantic Alliance. It also urged the government to shut all the military bases hosting US troops on Turkish territory.
keesje wrote:Turkey May Exit NATO In 5-6 Months Over US, Alliance's Provocation: Minister80% of the Turkish population is against Turkey being in the military alliance led by the United States, the Turkish Minister claimed. "The United States is a country running the most hostile and destructive policy towards Ankara," he stated.
The Turkish people have lately been showing sympathy for Russia and [Russian President Vladimir] Putin," Turkey's minister Ethem Sancak iterated, using a friendly tone for its ally Russia. This week, Turkey’s Patriotic Party also launched a nationwide campaign for Turkey to exit the North Atlantic Alliance. It also urged the government to shut all the military bases hosting US troops on Turkish territory.
https://www.republicworld.com/world-new ... eshow.html
Maybe if the Turkish people and their leadership really want this, we should respect that wish. In recent years Erdogan made choices regarding free press, LGBTQ, law and foreign policy that deviates with what other, more democratic oriented countries in Europe feel is the way forward. Maybe we can help speeding things up.
keesje wrote:Maybe if the Turkish people and their leadership really want this, we should respect that wish.
QF7 wrote:So if Turkey (or Türkiye) leaves NATO and kicks out the U.S. bases they’re going to lose a lot of Western concern about the Kurdish problem, and the Syrian problem, and as mentioned above the Greek problem, and the long simmering resentment in Armenia, and their sole ally is going to be Russia which post-Ukraine will be lucky to be able to defend itself. Has anybody there really thought this through?
Planeflyer wrote:W or w/o ergodan, turkey will not leave NATO.
Why ?
They see what is happening to the north and notice Russia never says they are being beaten by the EU. NATO is what Russia fears.
Imagine this situation in Ukraine w a strong EU and no NATO?
It’d be the Balkans all over again which is why Klaus avoids addressing it.
NATO was out on vacation at the start of the Balkans and essentially replaced by the EU.
The results based on the track record of all previous alliances were predictable.
I understand why we tried it but that doesn’t mean we can’t learn from it.
In short nato allows the EU to breathe and a strong EU is a big positive. Both have their limitations which are largely covered by the what both organizations do well.
QF7 wrote:So if Turkey (or Türkiye) leaves NATO and kicks out the U.S. bases they’re going to lose a lot of Western concern about the Kurdish problem, and the Syrian problem, and as mentioned above the Greek problem, and the long simmering resentment in Armenia, and their sole ally is going to be Russia which post-Ukraine will be lucky to be able to defend itself. Has anybody there really thought this through?
Aesma wrote:Turkey leaving NATO when it's in dire economic straits, and doing things that could rapidly get it sanctioned, economic ties cut with the EU and USA, doesn't seem like a plan for the country actually surviving. As an example, one of the most popular French cars, the Renault Clio (I'm on my third) is mostly built in Turkey, aside from high end trims which are made in France.
Also, Turkey has materially helped Ukraine, with various weapons, the famous drones, etc., so how much of a chance is there of a real alliance between the two ?
Greece has been mentioned, but don't forget Cyprus ! That could be a big can of worms.
Klaus wrote:keesje wrote:Maybe if the Turkish people and their leadership really want this, we should respect that wish.
It's their choice in any case, nothing other countries can or should do about it, since NATO membership is strictly voluntary.
Ukraine will be happy to take that vacated slot if this should indeed come to pass, but exiting major international organisations in a huff does not have a particularly happy track record, to put it mildly.
Right now I think there is lots of emotional bluster from Erdogan and from his right wing followers and allies about a swedish right-wing nitwit exploiting Sweden's liberal laws by publicly burning a quran exactly as an intentional provocation to Turkey and obligingly Erdogan needs to beat his chest and jump up and down making threatening noises because of that to rally his domestic conservative-religious electorate, especially since his actual track record is pretty bleak otherwise, in particular with the deepening crisis as a result of his own incompetent handling of the economy and of the currency.
When it comes down to brass tacks, however, leaving NATO would be highly uncomfortable for Turkey, not least because their conflict with Greece would then suddenly turn into one where Greece could invoke NATO's article 5 against Turkey as a then external threat, which is currently blocked by both being NATO members so NATO doesn't care about this conflict now.
But after a turkish exit NATO would suddenly care on a greek request, because Turkey would have turned into exactly what NATO is designed to deal with!
That, and being forced to ally with decrepit and likely beaten and further eroded Russia (to which Turkey had actually contributed!) wouldn't exactly be auspicious perspectives. Their misstep about the acquisition of russian SAMs already destroyed their F-35 program participation, and it can get a whole lot worse still.
It could even become a headache for Turkey to take their Leopard 2 out of NATO with them, actually!
So I'd take this bluster with a mid-sized packet of table salt, and with some patience until the current spat has run its course.
Should Erdogan be ousted in the coming elections, Turkey's positions will change substantially across the board anyway.
Thunderboltdrgn wrote:Klaus wrote:Right now I think there is lots of emotional bluster from Erdogan and from his right wing followers and allies about a swedish right-wing nitwit exploiting Sweden's liberal laws by publicly burning a quran exactly as an intentional provocation to Turkey and
He is Danish and not Swedish. His permits was paid by a "journalist" named Chang Frick who owns a right wing extremist news site
and is also working on a Sweden democrats tv-channel. https://www.svt.se/kultur/chang-frick-b ... anbranning
keesje wrote:If within the EU one prime minister would burn a bible or flag in the garden of his neighbour PM, that PM would run into walk into the garden and invite him in for a tea/ coffee and find out what is happening. Call that PM's partner & see if he/she can help. Not call extremist party members to organize a religious / nationalist demonstrations & use it to put pressure on an unrelated topic, hurting other EU members.
Maybe the cultural differences and political priorities for elected Turkish politicians are too large to fit in Europe, and we should liberate them of EU values and interferences.
When I burn a Swedish flag, bible or Billy bookcase in front of the Stockholm parliament, they'll probably come our & take care I don't burn myself & give me new ones. And we would do the same the other way around.
Derico wrote:That's all good and dandy and one can appreciate it when detached from everything else. Sure, you can tell your best friend that he is lazy, that he doesn't take a shower, that he talks too much, etc, and he probably will take it being your best friend. But if you are trying to get a big favor from him, is it really the smartest thing to do to tell him that right at the same time? I mean there is principle, but there is also shrewdness.
Klaus wrote:Derico wrote:That's all good and dandy and one can appreciate it when detached from everything else. Sure, you can tell your best friend that he is lazy, that he doesn't take a shower, that he talks too much, etc, and he probably will take it being your best friend. But if you are trying to get a big favor from him, is it really the smartest thing to do to tell him that right at the same time? I mean there is principle, but there is also shrewdness.
It was an absolutely calculated move – associated with the swedish opposition against NATO accession, actively trying to sabotage it this way, handing Erdogan a pretense on a silver platter!
In the end I doubt it will matter for the reasons given above.
Aesma wrote:It's still not a good look for the "religion of peace" but that's OT. I mean it caused massive demonstrations in Yemen, a country in the middle of a civil war + war with Saudi Arabia !
par13del wrote:Klaus wrote:Derico wrote:That's all good and dandy and one can appreciate it when detached from everything else. Sure, you can tell your best friend that he is lazy, that he doesn't take a shower, that he talks too much, etc, and he probably will take it being your best friend. But if you are trying to get a big favor from him, is it really the smartest thing to do to tell him that right at the same time? I mean there is principle, but there is also shrewdness.
It was an absolutely calculated move – associated with the swedish opposition against NATO accession, actively trying to sabotage it this way, handing Erdogan a pretense on a silver platter!
In the end I doubt it will matter for the reasons given above.
So similar to all those articles about Turkish historical massacres that were also used to derail their EU membership.......the reason why folks say politics is a dirty game.
Burning of Qur’an in Stockholm funded by journalist with Kremlin ties
Permit for demonstration at which anti-Islam provocateur burned Muslim holy book was paid for by far-right journalist linked to Moscow-backed media
Kiwirob wrote:Phosphorus wrote:Kiwirob wrote:
Now you're being an idiot, the end of the cold war was wasted, it was the perfect opportunity for the world to disarm, we screwed that up. There is absolutely no reason to suggest Russia would have tried to expand if NATO didn't exist.
An EU on friendly terms with Russia would be a far better outcome for everyone than the situation we have today. NATO should have ended 30 years ago.
https://www.thecitizen.in/index.php/en/ ... -Dissolved
Uh, oh. So you say that pointing out -- obvious insecurity of rather small countries, who don't like to be overrun by revanchist expansionist rogue neighbours -- and thus prefer to band together into defence pacts -- is being an idiot. All right then, your views on intelligence, unsurprisingly, are confirmed again.
The revisionist school of thought (to which I stupidly also did subscribe, too, for a couple of years in 1991-93) that tiger does change his stripes -- err, that Russia can be a benign neighbour, co-existence with whom is possible, even for those who was part of their empire in the past -- has been proven wrong, and wrong again. Multiple times over.
Calling "being an idiot" people, who see this obvious failure, is actually raising serious questions about mental capacity of the author.
And a link to an article of a Russian shill on why "NATO should be dissolved" is disingenuous. Kremlin would agree with this opinion too, why should it have any value?
Rather, ask folks in Poland or Lithuania. Even Finland. Whether they think NATO should be dissolved.
Maybe, NATO is the only reason those Lithuanians are not sent, to clear snow, in Siberia, all over again.
What proportion of Latvian, Lithuanian and Estonian population was shot, imprisoned and deported last time around? In Latvia, June 1941 deportations were like 1/6th of the population, correct?
NATO should have been dissolved 30 years ago, it's pointless doing it now, but if it had gone when it's time was over, we would IMO be living in a much safer world today.
Russia could easily have been a benign neighbour, many people believed this.KISSINGER’S WARNING
Henry Kissinger, the former secretary of state of the United States, while writing for the Wall Street Journal in 2014 following the annexation of Crimea pointed out that Ukraine cannot act as an outpost for either parties but rather should act as a bridge between the West and Russia.
He said that Ukraine is an inalienable part of Russia’s history and identity - similar but in varying degrees to what Russian president Vladimir Putin claimed in his speech before the so-called ‘military operation’ in Ukraine.
“To treat Ukraine as part of an East-West confrontation would scuttle for decades any prospect to bring Russia and the West — especially Russia and Europe — into a cooperative international system,” Kissinger wrote for the Wall Street Journal.
Kissinger also suggested that Ukrainian independence is a relatively new idea since it has been only two decades that the nation is independent and power-sharing between both Ukrainian speaking west Ukraine and Russophone eastern and southeastern Ukraine should share power to better govern their country.
Plenty of far more intelligent and knowledgeable people than anyone on this forum has come to the same conclusions about NATO expansion.In 1998, George Kennan, an American diplomat and historian known as the ‘architect of the Cold War’, said NATO expansion would mean nothing less than “the beginning of a new Cold War,” warning that it would be a “tragic mistake.”
“Of course, this will provoke a bad reaction from Russia. And when that happens, [those who made decisions about NATO expansion] will say that we have always told you the Russians are like that. But it’s just not true,” he said.
In 1997, 50 prominent foreign policy experts, including former senators, military leaders, and diplomats, sent an open letter to then-President Bill Clinton outlining their opposition to NATO expansion. “It is a policy error of historic proportions,” they wrote.
Conservative political commentator Pat Buchanan wrote in his 1999 book ‘A Republic, Not an Empire’, “By moving NATO onto Russia’s front porch, we have scheduled a twenty-first-century confrontation.”
The current director of the CIA, William Burns, said in 2008 that for Russia, “Ukraine’s accession to NATO is the brightest of all red lines.”
“I have not yet found anyone who would consider Ukraine in NATO as something other than a direct challenge to Russia’s interests,” he said.
These are just some of the statements made by major American political figures, but it would be possible to compile an entire book from forecasts made in the 1990s alone. And after the Ukraine crisis began in 2014, and Russia’s subsequent reabsorption of Crimea, opinions about the folly of further NATO expansion were heard more and more often in the West.
Over the past eight years, former Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser, Henry Kissinger, famed American scholar of Russian studies Stephen Cohen, and many other experts have issued warnings about NATO expansion.
Are you for peace or victory?
The decisions made by Western government officials over the past 20-25 years have clearly contradicted the recommendations of these experts.
The US lead West made a terrible blunder and now Europe has to pay for the consequences, because sure as chicken lay eggs the Europe is going to end up paying to rebuild Ukraine.
AirbusCheerlead wrote:But more seriously, I was wondering a few days ago what would happen if Putin lunches a nuclear strike against Berlin (fits your point 1)?
AirbusCheerlead wrote:Macron made clear that the French would only answer a nuclear strike if France is threatened.
Klaus wrote:Which is partly due to a lack of public communication on Scholz's part, leaving the forming of the international narrative mostly to the campaigning polish PiS
Klaus wrote:Poland is doing a lot to help Ukraine overall, but politically the ruling PiS still continues its vicious attacks on everything even just vaguely german at the same time as if WWII was still going on instead.
Klaus wrote:Unfortunately the polish government cannot be considered acting in good faith regarding Germany
GalaxyFlyer wrote:Kiwirob wrote:Phosphorus wrote:Uh, oh. So you say that pointing out -- obvious insecurity of rather small countries, who don't like to be overrun by revanchist expansionist rogue neighbours -- and thus prefer to band together into defence pacts -- is being an idiot. All right then, your views on intelligence, unsurprisingly, are confirmed again.
The revisionist school of thought (to which I stupidly also did subscribe, too, for a couple of years in 1991-93) that tiger does change his stripes -- err, that Russia can be a benign neighbour, co-existence with whom is possible, even for those who was part of their empire in the past -- has been proven wrong, and wrong again. Multiple times over.
Calling "being an idiot" people, who see this obvious failure, is actually raising serious questions about mental capacity of the author.
And a link to an article of a Russian shill on why "NATO should be dissolved" is disingenuous. Kremlin would agree with this opinion too, why should it have any value?
Rather, ask folks in Poland or Lithuania. Even Finland. Whether they think NATO should be dissolved.
Maybe, NATO is the only reason those Lithuanians are not sent, to clear snow, in Siberia, all over again.
What proportion of Latvian, Lithuanian and Estonian population was shot, imprisoned and deported last time around? In Latvia, June 1941 deportations were like 1/6th of the population, correct?
NATO should have been dissolved 30 years ago, it's pointless doing it now, but if it had gone when it's time was over, we would IMO be living in a much safer world today.
Russia could easily have been a benign neighbour, many people believed this.KISSINGER’S WARNING
Henry Kissinger, the former secretary of state of the United States, while writing for the Wall Street Journal in 2014 following the annexation of Crimea pointed out that Ukraine cannot act as an outpost for either parties but rather should act as a bridge between the West and Russia.
He said that Ukraine is an inalienable part of Russia’s history and identity - similar but in varying degrees to what Russian president Vladimir Putin claimed in his speech before the so-called ‘military operation’ in Ukraine.
“To treat Ukraine as part of an East-West confrontation would scuttle for decades any prospect to bring Russia and the West — especially Russia and Europe — into a cooperative international system,” Kissinger wrote for the Wall Street Journal.
Kissinger also suggested that Ukrainian independence is a relatively new idea since it has been only two decades that the nation is independent and power-sharing between both Ukrainian speaking west Ukraine and Russophone eastern and southeastern Ukraine should share power to better govern their country.
Plenty of far more intelligent and knowledgeable people than anyone on this forum has come to the same conclusions about NATO expansion.In 1998, George Kennan, an American diplomat and historian known as the ‘architect of the Cold War’, said NATO expansion would mean nothing less than “the beginning of a new Cold War,” warning that it would be a “tragic mistake.”
“Of course, this will provoke a bad reaction from Russia. And when that happens, [those who made decisions about NATO expansion] will say that we have always told you the Russians are like that. But it’s just not true,” he said.
In 1997, 50 prominent foreign policy experts, including former senators, military leaders, and diplomats, sent an open letter to then-President Bill Clinton outlining their opposition to NATO expansion. “It is a policy error of historic proportions,” they wrote.
Conservative political commentator Pat Buchanan wrote in his 1999 book ‘A Republic, Not an Empire’, “By moving NATO onto Russia’s front porch, we have scheduled a twenty-first-century confrontation.”
The current director of the CIA, William Burns, said in 2008 that for Russia, “Ukraine’s accession to NATO is the brightest of all red lines.”
“I have not yet found anyone who would consider Ukraine in NATO as something other than a direct challenge to Russia’s interests,” he said.
These are just some of the statements made by major American political figures, but it would be possible to compile an entire book from forecasts made in the 1990s alone. And after the Ukraine crisis began in 2014, and Russia’s subsequent reabsorption of Crimea, opinions about the folly of further NATO expansion were heard more and more often in the West.
Over the past eight years, former Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser, Henry Kissinger, famed American scholar of Russian studies Stephen Cohen, and many other experts have issued warnings about NATO expansion.
Are you for peace or victory?
The decisions made by Western government officials over the past 20-25 years have clearly contradicted the recommendations of these experts.
The US lead West made a terrible blunder and now Europe has to pay for the consequences, because sure as chicken lay eggs the Europe is going to end up paying to rebuild Ukraine.
There’s no reading of Russian history that can lead to the conclusion it will be a benign country in Europe. There’s a reason Eastern Europe embraced NATO—fear of Russian aggression based on history going back long before 1945. We can start with the original aggression in Ukraine by Russia following the collapse of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the defeat of Sweden, the multiple partitions of Poland. Russia, without NATO would be at the Brandenburg Gate, if not the Rhein.
L410Turbolet wrote:AirbusCheerlead wrote:Macron made clear that the French would only answer a nuclear strike if France is threatened.
Any link to that claim? If true, it is imho safe to say that the Franco-German plan on sidelining NATO to create "EU Army" is a stillborn. Killed to those who conceived it and pushed hardest for it.
Kiwirob wrote:GalaxyFlyer wrote:Kiwirob wrote:
NATO should have been dissolved 30 years ago, it's pointless doing it now, but if it had gone when it's time was over, we would IMO be living in a much safer world today.
Russia could easily have been a benign neighbour, many people believed this.
Plenty of far more intelligent and knowledgeable people than anyone on this forum has come to the same conclusions about NATO expansion.
The US lead West made a terrible blunder and now Europe has to pay for the consequences, because sure as chicken lay eggs the Europe is going to end up paying to rebuild Ukraine.
There’s no reading of Russian history that can lead to the conclusion it will be a benign country in Europe. There’s a reason Eastern Europe embraced NATO—fear of Russian aggression based on history going back long before 1945. We can start with the original aggression in Ukraine by Russia following the collapse of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the defeat of Sweden, the multiple partitions of Poland. Russia, without NATO would be at the Brandenburg Gate, if not the Rhein.
Change Russia to Germany, Austria, Italy, France, UK, in fact any European country. Europe has been in a constant state of war throughout its recorded history.
GalaxyFlyer wrote:Hopefully, any successor will take several years to consolidate his power, which will give the EU time to update and upgrade their militaries. I hope that they don't go back to the same old ways once the immediate threat is over.
It’s not a “Putin” problem, it’s a Russian one and any Putin successor will follow the same path.
johns624 wrote:GalaxyFlyer wrote:Hopefully, any successor will take several years to consolidate his power, which will give the EU time to update and upgrade their militaries. I hope that they don't go back to the same old ways once the immediate threat is over.
It’s not a “Putin” problem, it’s a Russian one and any Putin successor will follow the same path.
GalaxyFlyer wrote:I’d argue the Russian problem is a lot deeper than so-called “shock therapy”. There was zero Russian experience with market economics, democratic self-government to build on, so connected ex-communists stole everything. Yeltsin allowed or facilitated it because that’s all he and the government knew. Go back further and read Rick Smith’s The Russians from the late ‘70s. Smith spent years in the USSR for New York Times, traveled throughout the country and paints an ugly picture. Thievery, corruption abounded and that predicts the future that would happen.. Wall Street didn’t impose anything on Russia and didn’t have the ability to, in any case. The western, indeed the world economy, imposed its will on Russia. USSR collapsed, morally, economically, militarily and Russian thieves stole anything they could, as was their plan and experience. The Putin crowd then took over and imposed order.
Smith had an interesting analogy given by a Russian. “In America, society is a bowl, place a marble on the edge, drop it in the bowl, it will stop in the bottom. In Russia, invert the bowl, drop the marble on top and it goes off the table.” Basically, Russia is a crazy country with crazy people doing crazy things. They look European but aren’t anywhere close.
CWater wrote:I'd like to provide a plain Lithuanian perspective on NATO.
Please ignore the so-called arguments of NATO imperialism, false equivalence & whataboutism, warmongering, imaginary nazis, russophobia, upcoming Baltics' collapse etc. They're designed to weaken NATO support and protection of our freedom and democracy.
It was our nation's sovereign choice to pursue NATO and EU integration, with all of our elections, governments and referendums steering to this direction; it's not a "power grab" from US. It's an easy choice for most citizens: historical memory of political and social domination, gulags, forced military draft, banned alphabet, language schooling and books vs. Euro-Atlantic integration, learning to become a richer and freer country. Even Russian elite finds it an easy personal choice too. Our British ambassador has explained this years ago: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/ ... -mr-corbyn
I plead not to confuse cause and effect. Ukraine, Sweden and Finland's public NATO support shot up after Russia's military action. Russian media threatens us continuously, despite no desire from us to attack Russia. As long as threatening military and economic acts are a real threat, NATO will be a very valued, existential part of our nation's freedom, that we're endlessly thankful for.