The DnD Sanctuary

General => DnD Central => Topic started by: rjhowie on 2016-07-11, 03:05:27

Title: NATO nonsense
Post by: rjhowie on 2016-07-11, 03:05:27
What a bunch of cold war creation NATO is. It should have been got rid of when the Warsaw Pact lot went. Now troops funnelled into Poland and the Baltic States. When did Russia indicate it wanted to invade the Baltics or Poland? And that clown who is the person in charge of NATO was on television saying how united everyone was. Yet the President of France said publicly that there is no problem with Putin or Russia re France. Greece and Italy said similar - so much for the so-called unity. And the President of the USA came on moaning about how most of the NATO members are NOT spending 2% of their GDP on military.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2016-07-11, 04:51:29
Howie, you can hardly speak English… What will you do, when you have to learn Russian — or Farsi or Aribic?

You'll take boys out for a walk in the forest! That's what you do. (During WW II, what did you do?)
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: jax on 2016-07-11, 07:22:23
We may no longer be teenagers,  but none of us are old enough to have done anything constructive (or destructive) during WWII.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: krake on 2016-07-11, 08:19:07
And the President of the USA came on moaning about how most of the NATO members are NOT spending 2% of their GDP on military.
He has a valid point. Namely, the US military industrial complex needs revenues. 2% of the EU's GDP would be a nice boost.
Best way to achieve this goal is to spread a climate of fear and animosity in Eastern Europe. That was the main job of four-star General P.M. Breedlove and he did his job quite well...
As for J. Stoltenberg, he has little to say within the NATO. He is merely the chief propagandist for public relations.

BTW, the actual military budget of the NATO is 13x compared to that of Russia.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2016-07-11, 08:22:48
Jax, you seem not to know how old Howie is… :) But you also miss the point of my comment.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: krake on 2016-07-11, 08:23:34
What will you do, when you have to learn Russian — or Farsi or Aribic?
Or Tuvaluan?  :left:    :jester:
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: rjhowie on 2016-07-12, 01:25:24
Imagine a backward ex-colonist like Oakdale challenging me on language!

He is always the same because he cannot answer any charges made on anything and that includes this subject. Corporate militarism is a deep part of the US money barons control and having a big military saves adding more to the poverty and unemployment corner too. The point that Russia spends an awful lot less tells us something as well. Why couldn't the would-be satirist  attempter  Oakdale not try answering the points instead? NATO was there to combat the Warsaw Pact but when that dissolved NATO was kept alive as another control mechanism in the world by the West and especially America. In practical terms DC would be a bit more moral if they coped with all the internal issues like crime, police violence, wide poverty, unemployment and so on.#

Russia has absolutely no interest in taking European territory and what is going on with this attempt at intimidation is morally wrong.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2016-07-12, 08:34:06
I've mentioned what Eisenhower had to say about NATO, and I can't say I disagree. But Europe -for some reason- thought it better to prolong the alliance… Perhaps for reasons similar to those that kept Scotland from becoming a nation, eh? :)
Imagine a backward ex-colonist like Oakdale challenging me on language!
Imagine RJHowie calling anyone "backwards"! :) And about language, no less!
It would surprise me if you could construct a grammatical sentence three words long… But I'm not surprised at the lengths you'll go to vent your spleen.
Still, I wonder why…

You, of course, don't: You think "introspection" is a version of enema.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: midnight raccoon on 2016-07-12, 10:25:18
There is a valid point to insisting on fellow NATO members fulfilling their military expenditure requirements. This will allow this US to decrease its military budget and reduce the deficit. Howie, Russia did annex Crimea and fought a proxy war in Ukraine (yes evidence of Russia's involvement is all over the place), proving they can't be trusted in Eastern Europe. I would like to agree with you that NATO is a cold war relic, but Russia's actions say otherwise.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: krake on 2016-07-12, 11:20:55
Russia did annex Crimea ...
You can parrot your administration's propaganda slogan as long as you like. It won't become more credible. ;)
It was a secession as a result of the putsch staged in Kyiv by the USA with the help of the right sector. (F*ck the EU)

We want peace and wealth here in Europe. We don't want to be the fifth column of a world power which seeks to become the exclusive hegemon of the world...
Is this so hard to understand?
If some very few countries in Eastern Europe want to play the part of the fifth column, then they are free to do it on their own. Good luck!
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: jax on 2016-07-12, 11:27:31
Jax, you seem not to know how old Howie is… :) But you also miss the point of my comment.
It didn't have one. The big battle in Europe is over Ukraine, by European standards a huge country in the middle of Europe (by Chinese or Indian standards it would just another province). 


Militarily the goals are more limited. The EUropeans (and the Americans) want a rich, free and happy Ukraine as a productive new member, or at least solidly in the European zone of influence, while Putin want a poor hobbled country shackled to Kreml. The same goes for Belarus, Moldova, Georgia and the rest. Russia poses an actual military threat to the Baltic States, a theoretical one to Scandinavia.
NATO, even with a distracted US of A, is militarily stronger than Russia. In money spent certainly, but also in fighting ability. That doesn't mean that NATO is stronger everywhere. 

On their own the Scandinavian countries would lose against Russia. There is a debate how long they would hold out, but they would eventually fall in days, very best case weeks. On the other hand Russia would be hard-pressed to hold these countries, all the juicy bits are behind some territory that is quite unfriendly to invaders, an Arctic Afghanistan if you like. The cost-benefits are not in Russia's favour. Nobody is seriously worried about a Russian invasion. 

The Baltic States are a different story, these countries don't have much land (or people) and they are nearly defenceless. They are members of NATO, an organisation with all for one, one for all as a motto. These words aren't backed up by much in terms of military power. Yesterday was the anniversary of Srebrenica, showing that acts of solidarity can be harmful if not backed up. If Russia would want to invade the Baltic States nobody could stop them. The logical counter-move would then be for NATO to attack and invade Russia (Russia got lots of land to take, the Baltic States just a little). That would be quite costly, particularly if using the expensive full thermonuclear war option. 

Poland got more land and way more people, particularly in Britain and Scandinavia, and would be harder to invade. 

The Baltic States are not that strategically important to Russia, they are useful as a potential counter-move for threats to that which is strategically important to Russia, like Ukraine. It would have bad outcome for all parties, but it could be tempting. The NATO counter-move, similar to the DMZ in Korea, is to put up a tripwire of soldiers to die in case of an invasion, from multiple countries. This should void the Baltic gambit.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: krake on 2016-07-12, 11:43:23
(and the Americans) want a rich, free and happy Ukraine .... while Putin want a poor hobbled country shackled to Kreml.
South America comes to my mind. Wonder if you blame Putin as well for what is going on there since decades... :devil:
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: rjhowie on 2016-07-13, 02:42:27
May I remind you midnight raccon that the nonsense used as an excuse regarding Russia is often the Ukraine where the Crimea voted to go back to Russia where it had been for so long. It was way back during the horrible USSR times that Crimea was shoved into Ukraine and the people had to keep mouths shut.  And anyway if there had been volunteers from over in Russia helping the 2 eastern provinces of Ukraine so what? It is okay for the West to do what it damn well likes led by your own land and that is morally okay?  The legitimate government of Ukraine was overthrown no matter what we might have thought about it and the regime there today is as corrupt as hell the economy disastrous and people not doing very well. When the coup took over they did not care a damn about the eastern provinces at all because the had a strong Russian  tradition.

There is not one bit of truth that can be produced to show that Russia is after the 3 Baltic States  or Poland and NATO again led by you-know-who are deliberately doing a Cold war return. The matter of economics does come into it but not in the way you put over. The corporate military industry is big, big business in the USA and that is paramount.  Your country could save money by stopping creating situations to "justify" military presences. So the Baltic/Poland thing is a falsehood of blatant proportions and neither has Russia any intention of creating hundreds of military bases over the globe. Just think in a positive side how much you could help your own economy the millions of less well off over there if you just stopped all the excuses by the corporate rulers.

Your point regarding that members of a club should be paying is of course positive but that they don't (well we pay the 2%) and remember what i also stated regarding France, Italy and Greece on the needling of Russia. NATO is a waste of time, money and a nonsense. Generally your own country would be better off too if it went into history. Uh-ho if Ukraine collapses due to their  self created mess you wil dish out more and make the debt worse!  :(
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2016-07-13, 02:49:22
There is not one bit of truth that can be produced to show that Russia is after the 3 Baltic States  or Poland […]
Except maybe fairly recent history. (I, of course, assume you use the term "truth" to mean proof. But I could be wrong: Onomatopoeia is your natural mode of language use, isn't it? :) )
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: ersi on 2016-07-13, 03:41:03
May I remind you midnight raccon that the nonsense used as an excuse regarding Russia is often the Ukraine where the Crimea voted to go back to Russia where it had been for so long.
In Russia, voting does not have the same meaning as elsewhere in the world. Particularly under occupation. Crimea was under Russian occupation when the people voted. In 1940, under Soviet occupation, all three Baltic countries voted to become part of USSR.

For parallel, Kosovo voted under NATO occupation to become independent from Serbia. Russia does not recognise it as legitimate. Do you?
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2016-07-13, 07:24:45
Someone once said, It doesn't matter how many votes go this way or that; it only matters, who counts the votes! :)
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: midnight raccoon on 2016-07-13, 09:40:44
Someone once said, It doesn't matter how many votes go this way or that; it only matters, who counts the votes!
Especially in Crimea.
Particularly under occupation. Crimea was under Russian occupation when the people voted. In 1940, under Soviet occupation, all three Baltic countries voted to become part of USSR.
Exactly
It was way back during the horrible USSR times that Crimea was shoved into Ukraine and the people had to keep mouths shut.
What about when Crimea was ethnically cleansed of the Tartars, you know the actual Crimeans? You say people didn't want to be added to Ukraine, but those were the Russians sent to replace the displaced Crimeans. What is it with your love affair with Russia these days anyway? Your "facts" are half-truths at best.

Maybe Crimea should be it's own small nation, part of neither Russia nor Ukraine. A small nation with a nice beach and subtropical climate would be great for a tourism based economy with legalized gambling (the GDP per capita would dwarf that of Russia and Ukraine in relatively short order.)

 The objection is not that Crimea should be part of Ukraine, but Russia's actions there and in Ukraine. Personally, I would like to see the US defense budget slashed to about three percent of the GDP or so and leave NATO. But Putin has proved himself untrustworthy, so that's not feasible at this time.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: krake on 2016-07-13, 10:13:43
Someone once said, It doesn't matter how many votes go this way or that; it only matters, who counts the votes! :)
That's what voting machines are good for.
Whatever happens, nothing can go wrong. :devil:
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: rjhowie on 2016-07-15, 02:39:17
If there is a referendum that makes the US led NATO smile then it is portrayed as genuine but if not okayed by them then it is wrong!

Ukraine was part of the old Russian Imperial Empire for a long time may i remind. And her is another thing. Poland (!) and Russia split it between them. Interesting, eh? Anyway during WW2 the Ukraine had a Nazi puppet regime in place and fought with Hitler's lot and we see even today there are still extreme rightist wearing SS symbols who have been involved in the turmoil regarding the 2 eastern regions. The area has always had a racial Russo context and when the coup in Kiev happened they did not include the eastern Ukrainians at all because they were heavily Russian in race and orientation. That also tells you something about the Kiev mentality that the West is so keen to support. A bunch of corrupt, inefficient and useless idiots. So the 2 eastern areas were left out of the game and small wonder they have rebelled. 

And may I again remind you all that where is the actual proof that Russia is after the 3 Baltic States or Poland. It is an utter nonsense for the NATO idiots to do as they are doing with NO evidence whatsoever. Of course the present attitude of NATO is what the string pullers in corporate military industry wants and they get away with it.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: Belfrager on 2016-07-15, 23:15:57
That also tells you something about the Kiev mentality that the West is so keen to support. A bunch of corrupt, inefficient and useless idiots
Give Kiev immediately to Putin, an incorrupt, efficient and useful idiot.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2016-07-16, 01:18:09
Give Kiev immediately to Putin, an incorrupt, efficient and useful idiot.
As always, ineffectual Europeans — willing to tell others to do what they don't dare or could never manage… :)
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: rjhowie on 2016-07-16, 02:54:06
President Putin does not want Ukraine Belfrager as well you know. Maybe Portugal could be given away as I see you are in trouble with the EU over financial irregularity and a hefty fine. If it gets any worse in your place I do have spare accommodation but don't bring a crucifix!

Anyway, no-one has been able to contradict the hard fact that at no time has Russia indicated it is a threat to Poland or the Baltics and the reason is it has not happened nor will it. This is the West especially the string puller the USA wanting to be up to it's usual imperialist and military nonsense. Wish they would spend money on their own people instead of creating wars, de-stabilising those tht won't go under their financial control, etc.   It is of course always irritating for the hawkish USA to get frustrated when there are countries thay cannot get away with controlling so well done Putin.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2016-07-16, 06:41:31
Hey. Howie: How is it that Great Britain -with its "wide" democracy- and moral superiority (!)- became American stooges? :)
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: rjhowie on 2016-07-16, 11:41:58
Because we too have people like you.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: Belfrager on 2016-07-16, 20:37:06
but don't bring a crucifix!
Course not, I'll just burn your entire house. Probably with you inside.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: rjhowie on 2016-07-17, 00:33:44
Well Belfrager at least you are maintaining a tradition of burning people like at the Reformation......!
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: rjhowie on 2016-07-18, 02:20:53
Now how about this all you NATO freak gung-ho's?........

http://ahtribune.com/politics/1073-engineered-fears.html
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2016-07-18, 02:57:26
I wonder how many box-tops Mark Taliano had to send in to get his "decoder ring"? :) RT letting you down, RJ? Well, comrade, what did you expect? It's not like they'd allow you to do anything other than toe the "party line." (You could read a book about — no, wait! What was I thinking? :) No you couldn't.)
I guess RT has failed in its obligation to help you bash your American cousins…

But I look forward to your rants, about Venezuela and Canada! Should be fun.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2016-07-18, 08:00:19
A "money quote" from RT News: "Elections, democracy and even coups don't work, under American [influence]!"
Take it away, Howie… :)

(BTW: Three police officers were killed in Baton Rouge. We heard a lot about that over here; you likely did over there too. Yesterday, three police officers were killed in Alamaty -another Kazakhstan city saw a similar attack- where actual machine guns were used. [Take that, U.S. Democrat anti-2nd Amendment zealots!?] So:
Who's the "gun-crazed" nation? [Hint: The U.S. outlawed machine guns in 1932.]
Might it be countries that have never "experienced" the rule of law?)

Say what you will, RJ, you'd be safer in almost any American city than in Glasgow. And your little girls would be protected by the police here; "over there," not so much.
So, if you want to go it alone — feel free!

(Another BTW: I note from the commercial promos that Larry King finally found his "bottom"… Wonder what his rehab will consist of? :) Will he have to move to Glasgow — and gay-marry Howie?)
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: rjhowie on 2016-07-19, 18:07:24
Typical American redneck ignorance there Oakdale. You deliberately misuse that anti-girl thing that went on down in an d English city a while back - note not Glasgow. Now you try to avoid the gun happy police in your country y quoting a far east incident. There is no comparison at all at the level you lot go on damn guns. Typical answer to obvious flaws in th e wonderful land.

Anyway, sticking to the thread, NATO is a nonsense and an excuse for Western dominance to do what it lies. Now I wonder who leads that stupidity that too much of the West follows?
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: midnight raccoon on 2016-07-21, 23:14:03
I'm noting this gem from the article:

Quote
It is also well documented that the illegal Western sanctions besieging Syria are impacting the legitimate, secular, pluralist, democratic government of Syria...
I'm not sure how the government of Syria can be described a such. What fantasy would does the author live in anyway?

He references the Paul Craig reports that says this:

Quote
. In June 1941 Operation Barbarossa hit Russia with an invasion of four million troops, the majority German component of which were probably the most highly trained and disciplined troops in military history
as an answer to three to four thousand Canadian soldiers being sent to Latvia. Um, Germany was invading the Soviet Union at the time. NATO has no such plans and only a paranoid idiot would dare compared what amounts to a small Canadian army camp to Operation Barbarossa. For comparison, that would be damn close to being Las Vegas invading Russia. Quite literally.  The Nellis Air Force Base Census Designated Place has a population of about that.















Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: rjhowie on 2016-07-22, 00:40:59
Don't fathom why a mass thing like the WW2 invasion is used as a cover for the NATO nonsense. May I remind that the excuse being given for troops to the Baltics an Poland is protection from Russia. Someone trying to find a stance where Russia said it was after taking the Baltics or Poland is non-existent will be chewing air. Oh and throw in the fact that the majority of States in the NATO farce are making something very obvious that they are being cajoled as they are still not paying the 2%. My further indication of comments from those that do not see Russia as a threat also sutiably ignored.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: midnight raccoon on 2016-07-22, 02:53:20
You're not getting it.  I was referencing the article you posted, which complained about a few thousand Canadians going to Latvia and make a fairly big point that Russia wouldn't be afraid of them. So I noted that the Canadians aren't going there to invade in the first place, unlike the Germans.

I'm sure Putin doesn't like western forces showing in areas that were once part of the USSR. Poor little Putikins should have left his neighbors alone in that case. Taliano accuses the US and Nato of being "predatory" via a primitive critique of neoliberalism (which itself makes little sense in the context of Nato since neoliberalism involves policies such as deregulation and cutting government, reducing taxes, etc and has little to nothing to do with Nato...) If anybody's predatory, it would be Putin's Russia with sending forces to fight on behalf of rebels in Ukraine and annexing Crimea with a referendum done under the duress of occupation.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2016-07-22, 06:51:14
which itself makes little sense in the context of Nato since neoliberalism involves policies such as deregulation and cutting government, reducing taxes, etc and has little to nothing to do with Nato...
Sang, you know I consider myself a conservative (of the American stripe…). So, I think I can speak about the politics: You meant to say (…or type, which always seems to be more than a chore, for you!) neoconservatives… (It's too late for us conservatives to regain the the term. We are liberals; but the word has been co-opted by "progressives"…who are state-ists and bureaucrats.) Your term "neoliberalism" exists only in your rejected junior thesis…
But I'd like to see NATO dissolved, too.

I'm sort-of surprised to see us agreeing, again. :)
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: midnight raccoon on 2016-07-22, 08:30:58
You meant to say (...or type, which always seems to be more than a chore, for you!) neoconservatives..
It wasn't my term, but Taliano's. I was taken aback by Taliano using "neoliberalism" in a ridiculous way I never would. You're correct about the proper term for that type of foreign policy.


Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: rjhowie on 2016-07-22, 10:14:45
Can I point out midnight that Putin did not invade ukraine - Russian volunteers did. Crimea which hasd been part of the wider russian corner in USSR days had been as I have reiterated taken out and dumped in Ukraine. The majority in Crimea are of russian stock and could not do anything about it in Soviet days. When the referendum was held the vast majority wanted back with Russia and fair enough - even pensioners are better off than under Ukraine. That Referendum was rubbished by the US and West followers who are the same people who backed the Ukrainians who overthrew an elected government! The 2 Eastern provinces of ukraine are again mostly Russian and may I passingly remind that they had one hell of a time in WW2 because most of West ukraine supported the Nazis and had their own SS units.  Russia has publicly made it clear that they did not start an issue to take over those 2 areas but Ukraine is so damn corrupt, economically failing and a disaster they do not want to be part of it. When the illegal coup started ws the East invited to be part of it? - Nope.

So Crimea is happy yo be back where it had been, Russia isn't global imperialistic and you can count the outside bases on a hand unlike somewhere else one can mind of that should be spending more of it's money on it's internal matters and own people.  The French and others were right when they said they did not see Russia as a problem the real one is closer to home in the West. The one success story is the business for military corporate barons.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: midnight raccoon on 2016-07-22, 11:28:01
Can I point out midnight that Putin did not invade ukraine - Russian volunteers did.
If you believe that, than you can wire me a hundred thousand dollars. As it happens, I'm the descendant of old Irish nobility. When Cromwell invaded Ireland, he seized the assets of my ancestor who was the king of Ireland at the time. Those assets are held by the Bank of Britain and have grown in value to over 10 billion dollars through interest owed and all that!  Her Royal Hindquarters has finally agreed to release the funds to me :yes:  All I need you to do is wire me that small fee to release that fortune and when the transaction is completed, I'll send you the equivalent of a billion dollars in British pounds as a token of my gratitude. Think of all you can do with that money!  If you believe Putin T Barnum, you might as well believe my scam :yes:
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: krake on 2016-07-22, 17:03:23
Can I point out midnight that Putin did not invade ukraine - Russian volunteers did.
Russian volunteers didn't invade the Ukraine. Don't get trapped in Sang's rhetoric. :)
If Russia would have invaded the Ukraine, Kyiv would be Russian now. ;)
Russian volunteers are just fighting alongside the rebels. Without their help the Right Sector would have flattened the region already.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: midnight raccoon on 2016-07-22, 19:15:25
Oh please. Russian Intervention in Ukraine 2014 to present (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_military_intervention_in_Ukraine_(2014–present)) :p

Quote
n 2014, Russia made several military incursions into Ukrainian territory. Beginning with Crimea, Russian soldiers without insignias took control of strategic positions and infrastructure within the Ukrainian territory of Crimea, which Russia annexed after a disputed referendum.[7][62][63][64][65] Subsequently, demonstrations by pro-Russian groups in the Donbass area of Ukraine escalated into an armed conflict between the Ukrainian government and separatist forces of the self-declared Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics. In August, Russian military vehicles crossed the border in several locations of Donetsk Oblast[31][66][67][68][69][70] The incursion by the Russian military was seen as responsible for the defeat of Ukrainian forces in early September.
Plenty of sources all through the article. It is completely without question that Russian interfered with Ukraine and that Russian troops and vehicles were there.

Quote
A significant number of Russian citizens, many veterans or ultranationalists, are currently involved in the ongoing armed conflict, a fact acknowledged by separatist leaders. Carol Saivets, Russian specialist for the Security Studies Program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, described the role of Russian soldiers as 'almost certainly' proceeding with the blessing and backing of the Russian state, "even if the Russians are indeed volunteers rather than serving military men".[5] Recruitment for the Donbass insurgents was performed openly in Russian cities using private or voyenkomat facilities, as was confirmed by a number of Russian media.[136][143]

....

Quote
August military intervention[edit]
In early August, according to Igor Strelkov, Russian servicemen, supposedly on "vacation" from the army, began to arrive.[180] In late August 2014, according to NATO officials, Russia moved self-propelled artillery onto the territory of Ukraine.[181] Russian soldiers were captured in Donetsk Oblast; Russia claimed that they had crossed over by accident.[182]

Russia was reported to have shelled Ukrainian territory,[183] and Russian military forces were reported to have entered Ukraine near Novoazovsk,[184][185][186

Do you understand yet? Not only were there Russian troops in Ukraine, some were even captured.

I'll let you read through the article for yourself. It's not possible to intelligently deny that Russia was in Ukraine.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2016-07-22, 20:21:34
It's also not possible to deny that Ukraine was conquered by the Russian/Soviets and remained -until quite recently- a part of their empire… Russia has a long history with Ukraine. The U.S. does not.

p.s.,
I think krake is a German Bolshevik… ;)
—————————————————————————
Sorry to drop this in here… But: The Munich attacks haven't been determined to be Islamic terrorism — yet. Shouldn't it be NATO's job, to "take out" ISIS?
Indeed, shouldn't European nations have recognized that ISIS has declared war on them, too? (I'd smirk — except my country hasn't done any better… :( )
My condolences, for what they're worth. My president condemned the attacks "in the strongest possible terms". Way to go, O. That'll show 'em!
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: ersi on 2016-07-22, 20:49:58
Do you understand yet? Not only were there Russian troops in Ukraine, some were even captured.

I'll let you read through the article for yourself. It's not possible to intelligently deny that Russia was in Ukraine.
I suspect that krake thinks that his stronger point is that the current government of Ukraine is illegitimate, unelected and bad for the people. Therefore Russians have full right to send humanitarian missions to help the people in the land that is Russian anyway.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2016-07-22, 21:02:49
land that is Russian anyway
This is more true than most Americans will admit. Perhaps even more than a few Europeans would agree.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: krake on 2016-07-22, 22:27:33
I'll let you read through the article for yourself. It's not possible to intelligently deny that Russia was in Ukraine.
Very kind of you but it's not worth the bandwidth.
Quote
according to NATO officials
bla, bla, bla...
Wikipedia was never a trustworthy source for research but lately it became more and more the mouthwhore of US propaganda.
BTW, according to NATO spin doctors there isn't and never was a civil war in Eastern Ukraine.
Ukrainian ultra nationalistic battalions aren't shelling residential areas in Donbass. They are fighting against Russian invaders. :)
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: krake on 2016-07-22, 22:30:57
p.s.,
I think krake is a German Bolshevik… ;)
A German socialist but I assume that it does not make any difference to you. ;)
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: Belfrager on 2016-07-22, 22:37:32
A German socialist
I can assure he's not a German National-Socialist.
Just a politically correct 2.0 New German Socialist.
Socialists reproduces like rats, lots of variations.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: ersi on 2016-07-23, 05:43:37
p.s.,
I think krake is a German Bolshevik… ;)
A German socialist but I assume that it does not make any difference to you. ;)
A Schröderite?
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: midnight raccoon on 2016-07-23, 06:22:07
Wikipedia was never a trustworthy source for research but lately it became more and more the mouthwhore of US propaganda.
Even as you repeat Russian propaganda. What were Russian troops doing in Ukraine? It was not a humanitarian mission. The world is not as simple as Russia = Good and US = Bad or vice/versa. I'm a critic of American neocon foreign policy myself. The difference is that for some reason you seem to excuse/deny everything Russia does and think everything (including Euromaiden) is America's fault.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: Frenzie on 2016-07-23, 06:27:17
A Schröderite?
He's a social-democrat, not a socialist. :P
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: ersi on 2016-07-23, 07:05:10
A Schröderite?
He's a social-democrat, not a socialist. :P
This is exactly what I am trying to clarify. Is krake making a distinction between a socialist and social-democrat and what, in his opinion, is the distinction?
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: rjhowie on 2016-07-23, 08:34:30
Quoting Russian propaganda?? And what has America and it's Western go-alongs been doing?  For goodness sake talk about being taken in! Much of the s-called propaganda is misusing actuall happening. I recall for a blatant example when rebels were near the shot down plane and showed one "taking a child's doll amongst the stuff lying about. The attitude by the news suggesting stealing going on. However a month after that I seen another copy of that incident which portrayed what really happened. The man holding the item up then doing the sign of the cross in memory of a child.  The CIA and Pentagon mindsets have been at the propaganda stuff for decades. One point being made here is that if Russia had wanted to invade Ukraine it could have and bashed it within a very short time due to the state that Ukraine is in.  The Russian basher mentality here totally ignores the ne-Nazi past of Ukraine and in the present day the neo-Nazi volunteers of today. They wear SS style emblems and follow much of the same stuff as back in the 1940's. They supervised Nazi camps, murdered and were Hitlerite mad. Today Ukraine is a total shambles so why would Russia want to invade the damn place.  Ukraine also owes Russia mass sums for power supplies and got away with it.

Too many in America want to bash away at Russia as it is a country that imperialistic and corporate America cannot control hence the new Cold war being created.  NATO is just another added excuse for US control of the world and moans about the members not paying what they should. That should tell something that NATO is out of date not needed and another heavy blight on ordinary Americans who are suffering a damaged economy, huge debts, lack of rights and strained living. When the USSR went and russia developed into a capitalist system the money men in the ex-colonies rubbed their hands in glee at another growth in their fortunes but that was not to be. Anyone who does not bend the knee will get economic pressures, cordoned off or damn invaded if not collapsed.

As I have directly pointed out and had to re-emphasise it, Russia has NEVER threatened the Baltic States nor places like Poland with invasion but the brained over there in America can be easily influenced and propagated whatever way the controllers want. Even the constant rubbish about Putin is demeaning to you lot in the political nutjob corner. last year i watched a programme where he was invited to a television studio to have a detailed chat with the reporters there and it showed very well his intelligence. In addition each year he gives a public approach and shown on television where all sorts of questions can be raised and he spends 4 hours answering them all. When it comes to real politics you folk over the pond need a freer chance to be able to use the grey cells rather than have them very carefully taken over by State and clever propaganda expertise. But there again when you see things like the big two Conventions and the childish and immature show put on one has to understand how easy it is for the government mind control experts.

Crimea is happy to be back where it wanted to be and as for you folk your taxes will be swallowed "helping" a country so corrupt, governmental Nazis in power as Ministers and a shambles in economics and being mis-run. You'll never learn.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: midnight raccoon on 2016-07-23, 09:47:11
Quoting Russian propaganda?? And what has America and it's Western go-alongs been doing?  For goodness sake talk about being taken in!
Hardly. You think I don't know that America engages in propaganda? So does the UK. And Germany, and France, etc. If Scotland secedes from the UK, even your country the size of small US state will to some extent. Being the successor to the old Soviet Union, Russia itself a master of propaganda from the coldwar days and I'm afraid you and Krake have taken in.
Russia has NEVER threatened the Baltic States nor places like Poland with invasion but the brained over there in America can be easily influenced and propagated whatever way the controllers want
I don't think anybody actually said Russia planned any such thing. A small Canadian units in Latvia would not even be meant to guard against such a thing. If the US was worried about such a thing, what would we really do? Maybe ground troops in the six figures stationed in the Baltics (you'll need that many to hope to win the opening battles of a war against Russia), plenty of tanks, ships full of a landing force of Marines and Navy Seals, probably aircraft carriers with stealth bombers and state of the art fighter jets. So get real and don't blow a few Canadians of out proportion. Unless something very major happens, the US and Russia have no plans invade either or allies of each other.  Say what you want about either of them, but neither Putin nor Obama are stupid men. Clinton isn't stupid either. Trump actually isn't an idiot either, just delusional and otherwise insane.
Crimea is happy to be back
Of course. Replace the actual Crimeans with Russians and obviously they would want to be part of Russia. That doesn't give Russia the right to occupy and annex another country's territory. That's what happened.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: midnight raccoon on 2016-07-23, 09:57:28
Okay, I get were the delusion that the US thinks Russia would invade the Baltics comes from. The Rand corporation ran some simulations of what would happen if this occurred (http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/revealed-russian-invasion-could-overrun-nato-60-hours-15112) (the title is misleading) The conclusion was that Russia could overrun the Baltic states in 60 hours, which is no surprise considering how small those countries are. This not the same thing as saying Russia would do that. Putin knows that an attack on one Nato member is an attack on all, so that would just be the war's start and far from its entirety.

Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: Belfrager on 2016-07-23, 20:57:07
Thanks to Germany's repeated attacks against Europe, Europeans have no option but Nato.
All the rest is folklore.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: krake on 2016-07-24, 09:06:04
Thanks to Germany's repeated attacks against Europe, Europeans have no option but Nato.
This is an unequivocal acknowledgement to the new world order, coming from Portugal. :devil:
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: Belfrager on 2016-07-24, 09:57:03
Thanks to Germany's repeated attacks against Europe, Europeans have no option but Nato.
This is an unequivocal acknowledgement to the new world order, coming from Portugal. :devil:
Also the begin of resistance.  :devil:
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: rjhowie on 2016-07-24, 11:09:12
Well belfrager's attempt at the satirical kind of falls flat as Germany is IN NATO. And anyway if Portugal was going to be the new pusher it would have to find some money judging by the state the country is in!

Can I say midnight that the recent military exercise in eastern Europe has been stated as what would happen if Russia invaded and a very obvious part of the NATO deliberate thinking process.  NATO is a hangover from the past and should be dumped and the money saved spent on more important things. Your own people would be helped greatly as a passing example. Leaning on Russia has been as obvious as the nose on the face process and is ridiculous.  All the name calling re Putin is a nonsense and is a lot cleverer than the propaganda nonsense dished out in an attempt to brain people. And as I also emphasised the NATO members are not that keen on the 2% thing are they so a bit of hypocrisy goung on with members.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: midnight raccoon on 2016-07-25, 22:57:53
And as I also emphasised the NATO members are not that keen on the 2% thing are they so a bit of hypocrisy goung on with members.
And a lot of Americans aren't so keen on the US having to spend this much on the military. America gets ragged on because say most Americans might be able to point to such and such country on a map but a European student could, or get out performed on a math test by Europeans and Asians. Maybe it wouldn't be this way of some the resources put toward the military could go to education because fellow NATO members started pulling their weight.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: rjhowie on 2016-07-26, 00:00:42
My country pays it's bit bit I do not see the rest doing that and suggest they are being dragged into a thing and leaned on. One of the few things that Trump actually suggested that made sense was to ditch NATO and just think (apart from coming from him) how good that would be for the economy.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: midnight raccoon on 2016-07-26, 10:43:49
They're not being leaned on and weren't dragged into it. They depend on Nato for their defense. Say what you want about the Rand study showing how quickly some of these countries could be overrun, but as I said, it's nothing that anybody didn't know already and a common sense knowledge of, say Estonia vs Russia, is way they wanted to join in the first place. But as long as Nato exists they need to pay their fair share.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: rjhowie on 2016-07-26, 11:42:49
Getting them to do it is something else no matter the "rules." And the organisation is really part of the US wide military "imperial" thinking so conjuring up situations is part of the  not very subtle ways of maintaining that stance. It is an utter waste of money and no-one suffers more on that front than many, many of your own people because of the background of corporate military business. Time it was ditched.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: string on 2016-07-31, 19:48:22
Does anyone rally think that if NATO did not exist, Putin would not have, by now, "liberated" the Russian-speaking populations from their Eastern European overlords? Unfortunately we need to keep tis alliance.

I do sympathise, however, with US annoyance that Europe is getting their defence on the cheap, It was understandable in the '50s and maybe the '60s but not now.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: Belfrager on 2016-07-31, 21:45:54
I do sympathise, however, with US annoyance that Europe is getting their defence on the cheap,
Says the man of the Brexit....
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: rjhowie on 2016-08-01, 00:12:28
Well string Crimea I watched a recent documentary and the population of Crimea is content to be back where they once were. Intereseing comment Belfrager from poor begging bowl Portugal on NATO defence. May I remind him that Gt Britain Brexit does pay the agreed percentage on defence.

Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2016-08-01, 08:56:52
As does Estonia… The "nuclear umbrella" is still something to consider, isn't it? :(
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: string on 2016-08-01, 09:06:03
I do sympathise, however, with US annoyance that Europe is getting their defence on the cheap,
Says the man of the Brexit....
Brexit has nothing to do with this but as it happened I was against Brexit.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: Frenzie on 2016-08-01, 09:38:48
I do sympathise, however, with US annoyance that Europe is getting their defence on the cheap, It was understandable in the '50s and maybe the '60s but not now.
I don't. The disproportional US defense spending on which we supposedly "free-ride" is primarily related to US interests elsewhere in the world. A good tear-down of that old canard (which may have had some relevance a decade ago) by a French diplomat can be found here (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/03/obama-doctrine-europe-free-riders/475245/). One of the most important points isn't even brought up until the very end.
Quote
Beyond the sphere of military affairs, the significant diplomatic achievements that Europeans and Americans have brought about together in the past year alone also refute the cliché of the European free-rider. The Iran deal struck in July 2015 was the product of diplomatic heavy lifting on the part of the United States as well as the European Union. Washington pushed Europeans to put harsh sanctions on Iran, but the United States itself had little leverage on the Iranian economy, having had virtually no trade with the country since 1979. In many ways, it was the European choice to back sanctions that made them so effective—and it was the Europeans who bore many of the costs. Likewise, the sanctions on Russia that helped Germany and France broker an imperfect ceasefire in Ukraine in 2015 are economically more painful for Europeans than for U.S. companies. The Obama administration has, de facto, relied on its European allies to handle the crisis created by Russia’s annexation of Crimea and intervention in eastern Ukraine.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: krake on 2016-08-01, 10:47:12
Quote
The Obama administration has, de facto, relied on its European allies to handle the crisis created by Russia's annexation of Crimea and intervention in eastern Ukraine.
Small correction:
The Obama administration has, de facto, relied on its European allies to handle the crisis created by the putsch of the right sector backed by the USA.
(F*ck the EU)

Crimea's fate and the civil war in eastern Ukraine are the consequences of that putsch and not vice versa.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: rjhowie on 2016-08-02, 00:22:53
You have well hit things on the head there krake.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: string on 2016-08-02, 17:09:51
I do sympathise, however, with US annoyance that Europe is getting their defence on the cheap, It was understandable in the '50s and maybe the '60s but not now.
I don't. The disproportional US defense spending on which we supposedly "free-ride" is primarily related to US interests elsewhere in the world. A good tear-down of that old canard (which may have had some relevance a decade ago) by a French diplomat can be found here (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/03/obama-doctrine-europe-free-riders/475245/). One of the most important points isn't even brought up until the very end.
Quote
Beyond the sphere of military affairs, the significant diplomatic achievements that Europeans and Americans have brought about together in the past year alone also refute the cliché of the European free-rider. The Iran deal struck in July 2015 was the product of diplomatic heavy lifting on the part of the United States as well as the European Union. Washington pushed Europeans to put harsh sanctions on Iran, but the United States itself had little leverage on the Iranian economy, having had virtually no trade with the country since 1979. In many ways, it was the European choice to back sanctions that made them so effective—and it was the Europeans who bore many of the costs. Likewise, the sanctions on Russia that helped Germany and France broker an imperfect ceasefire in Ukraine in 2015 are economically more painful for Europeans than for U.S. companies. The Obama administration has, de facto, relied on its European allies to handle the crisis created by Russia’s annexation of Crimea and intervention in eastern Ukraine.
I don't think I implied that Europe did nothing, merely that is has not shouldered enough responsibility.

Your remark,  "which may have had some relevance a decade ago " encapsulates the essence of my reaction in that NATO goes back many years and, over the years of its existence I really do not think that Europe has done it's fair share, population compared with popultion. It's not just a matter of picking up some ex-Europe examples over the past year where European diplomatic efforts have indeed been aligned with  US policy,. Nor has, for example, Climate Change activities much to do with NATO in this respect. What I am thinking about is the amount of personnel and treasure that Europe has been prepared to supply in support of NATO. There were reasons for it in the early days but as Europe recovered from the WW2 period we have left the US to carry much of the cost.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: Frenzie on 2016-08-02, 19:51:53
I don't think I implied that Europe did nothing, merely that is has not shouldered enough responsibility.
My apologies, I had too much Trump in mind.

What I am thinking about is the amount of personnel and treasure that Europe has been prepared to supply in support of NATO. There were reasons for it in the early days but as Europe recovered from the WW2 period we have left the US to carry much of the cost.
Well sure, back in 1950 that was the case. But for the past few decades it feels more like the US pushing itself on us, even if I do want a European Defense Force and I think it's stupid that the Dutch army sold the majority of its tanks to Saudi Arabia. It's fine, desirable even, if the US were to step back to more of a supporting, advisory role instead of what they've been doing.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: krake on 2016-08-02, 21:47:48
NATO - a charity organisation aimed to protect Europe and to secure its wealth?

Short introduction (http://dcleaks.com/index.php/about/)

Hacked emails (https://theintercept.com/2016/07/01/nato-general-emails/) of the until recently supreme commander of NATO forces in Europe Gen. Philip Breedlove.

Speaking of the until recently supreme commander of NATO forces in Europe Gen. Philip Breedlove - he was just another worthy successor of other illustrious characters like for instance Gen. Lyman Lemnitzer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods).

Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: rjhowie on 2016-08-02, 22:08:40
Basically NATO is purely and simply a not very hidden excuse for trying to hide US military imperialism. Trump for all his annoyances is right about NATO but of course in a wider situation no justification for him!
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: Belfrager on 2016-08-02, 22:36:58
I'm very sorry my dear Europeans but NATO it's the only way of protecting ourselves. If it comes with subjection to the USA that's entirely the fault of Germany, France and England.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: krake on 2016-08-02, 23:48:39
I'm very sorry my dear Europeans but NATO it's the only way of protecting ourselves.
Protecting from whom and whom do you mean by "protecting ourselves"?
You mean this?
Thanks to Germany's repeated attacks against Europe, Europeans have no option but Nato.
With other words: Because of Germany's repeated attacks against Europe, Europeans have no option but subjection to the USA.
And then this:
If it comes with subjection to the USA that's entirely the fault of Germany, France and England.
Shouldn't you have mentionrd Portugal first, since you are still afraid of the Wehrmacht Bundeswehr? :D

BTW, you forgot to mention Italy among those candidates susceptible to subjection. Wonder why?
Do you consider Italy too irrelevant? However, compared to Portugal...
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: Belfrager on 2016-08-03, 22:28:44
Are you trying to deny Germany's responsibilities in Europe destruction and the consequent subjection to the USA?
Course you are. The pacifist disguise doesn't last long.

The moment the USA stops considering Europe as a significant asset to their worldwide strategy is the moment you'll see Putin's teeth.
Until then you just see his smiles. Poor lamb that believes in such smiles.

Between American's continuous, repeated and successive errors and Putin's cold efficacy, I prefer the first as the best way to keep Europe surviving. NATO keeps on being necessary for Europe.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: rjhowie on 2016-08-04, 00:28:44
More propaganda guff about Putin and shows how well brains can be misused.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: midnight raccoon on 2016-08-04, 09:31:59
And yet you can't show how that's wrong...
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: krake on 2016-08-04, 10:11:28
More propaganda guff about Putin and shows how well brains can be misused.
It's not the proof of a misused brain but rather one of its lack.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: krake on 2016-08-04, 10:25:09
Are you trying to deny Germany's responsibilities in Europe destruction and the consequent subjection to the USA?
Germany's economic strength is not the result of subjection to the USA.
Speaking of subjection to the USA, how about the coalition of the willings? Are you really so short of memory?
As for responsabilities, of course Germany has its own part of share. However, we don't make Europe's rules alone.
According to you, German tax payers paying for you are slaves while 'revolutionary' Portuguese like you who don't pay taxes are clever.
How about cleaning up the mess at home before pointing your finger at others?

The moment the USA stops considering Europe as a significant asset to their worldwide strategy is the moment you'll see Putin's teeth.
You can wait for that moment till you die. The USA considers the whole world to be their asset. However, it has still to struggle with some reluctant parts of it...

Between American's continuous, repeated and successive errors and Putin's cold efficacy, I prefer the first as the best way to keep Europe surviving.
Just another baffled phraze of yours. Europe's surving warranted by "American's continuous, repeated and successive errors"?  :faint:

NATO keeps on being necessary for Europe.
What for? I've asked you before this question and got only empty phrazes as response.
Europe doesn't need neither US military bases nor NATO. What it needs is a joint European armed force protecting European interests.

Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: jax on 2016-08-04, 11:14:42
These are different ideas of "defence", like territorial defence and projection of force. European defence has during the Cold War been primarily been the former, Battlefield Europe. Most European countries don't do the latter that well. Right now I am at the primary air force base in Norway, and a week ago I could watch an F16 fly low over the family farm for the first time in my life (a loud piece of American technology). Territorial defence has had lesser presence in defence thinking until very recently.

Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: Frenzie on 2016-08-04, 14:18:09
Most European countries don't do the latter that well.
Agreed, but NATO is about the former. I want a European Defense Force for both.

a week ago I could watch an F16 fly low over the family farm for the first time in my life (a loud piece of American technology).
I'm well familiar with naval and air force exercises. Put another way, I kind of know what an earthquake feels like, but I've never felt an earthquake. More concretely, they regularly perform target practice on the big uninhabited beach of Vlieland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlieland). But yeah, F16 fly by, but they don't go beyond the speed of sound (anymore) in the vicinity of inhabited areas. What I'm not personally familiar with are the best tanks in the world — you know, the ones we sold to Saudi Arabia. Not that they're of much use if you don't (air)ship 'em to Srebrenica, but that's another matter. I forget, was it the French or the Americans who denied air support, even from our own F16s? Such are the joys of NATO command structure.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: krake on 2016-08-04, 15:07:48
Not directly related to NATO
The price of dependency and an example of some indirect costs of being at someone's leash...
It's by far not only about France but I stumbled upon this article (http://www.leparisien.fr/espace-premium/fait-du-jour/coups-bas-contre-les-societes-francaises-en-iran-04-08-2016-6014317.php) today.

Of course Portugal is among those European countries affected the least... :)
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: Frenzie on 2016-08-04, 18:59:59
Hm, interesting. Quite a hypocritical little group.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: Belfrager on 2016-08-04, 22:53:37
What it needs is a joint European armed force protecting European interests.
:lol:  :lol:  :lol:

Ruled by the fifth Reich? The same way you've been doing with the EU? By your Merkel Fuher?

I'll answer you when I have the time. To that abomination and all the rest.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: rjhowie on 2016-08-04, 23:53:41
You are so very wrong krake about Putin and you seem taken in by the silly Western propaganda. Every year he appears in front of a public audience for around 4 hours answering questions and quite happy to be so each year. A couple of years ago I watched him visiting a tv station and agreed to speak to a group of around half a dozen of it's senior news people and like that 4 hour thing excelled himself in knowledge and handling.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: Frenzie on 2016-08-05, 08:44:16
Ruled by the fifth Reich? The same way you've been doing with the EU? By your Merkel Fuher?
Fifth? But you seem to have an unconditional problem with the idea of a German "Reich". I don't. The Holy Roman Empire was okay. The united Bismarck Germany wasn't too bad either. The Hitler Empire was awful. A fourth (or fifth) present-day GermanEuropean Empire would be morally superior to all empires past and present for the time being. :)
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: string on 2016-08-05, 15:53:21
What a bunch of cold war creation NATO is. It should have been got rid of when the Warsaw Pact lot went. Now troops funnelled into Poland and the Baltic States. When did Russia indicate it wanted to invade the Baltics or Poland? And that clown who is the person in charge of NATO was on television saying how united everyone was. Yet the President of France said publicly that there is no problem with Putin or Russia re France. Greece and Italy said similar - so much for the so-called unity. And the President of the USA came on moaning about how most of the NATO members are NOT spending 2% of their GDP on military.
NATO started in 1949 (http://www.history.com/topics/cold-war/formation-of-nato-and-warsaw-pact), responding to the Cold War which started in 1947 (http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2013/11/cold-war-start-end/).
You will find some discussion about the cause of the Cold war here (http://www.johndclare.net/cold_war1_answer.htm)

Regarding yor remarks about Crimea, you seem to forget that Russia was a signatory to the treaty which guaranteed the territorial integrity of the Ukraine, incorporating the Crimea within it. Russia invaded the Ukraine and annexed the Crimea, not Europe, not the USA.

Then there's is the little matters of the shooting down of that airliner, the Cuban missile affair, the murders on British soil  committed/facilitated and covered up by Russia, all the way back to Crabb.

Maybe you care for a nice cup of Polonium Tea, but I don't.

Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: rjhowie on 2016-08-05, 23:35:59
You are simply being brained by Western propaganda.

Russia did NOT invade Ukraine and it even supplied the mess of a country with fuel and owed big money by Ukraine for it. The Crimea voted to want to back to where it wanted and that was perfectly legitimate just in the same way the West was content for the referendum on Kosovo.  You are also brained on the plane because we do not know who shot it down at all. You just automatically shove it into the Russian corner so may I remind you that much of the Ukrainian weaponry was got from Russia! As for the 2 Eastern parts of Ukraine which have more or less seceded may I also remind you that Russia has publicly said a long time ago that it does not want to absorb the 2 Provinces.

It was Ukraine that helped create the matter of the East of the country because Kiev did not care a damn about them because the principle language there was Russian and the illegal coup in Kiev (supported by the stupid West) did not care a damn about certain parts of their own country.  Ukraine is a political and financial basket-case and created by itself NOT Russia. May I also say that the widespread corruption and mess in Ukraine is self created and the war time Nazi inclined side is prominent once again.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: Belfrager on 2016-08-05, 23:57:58
A fourth (or fifth) present-day GermanEuropean Empire would be morally superior to all empires past and present for the time being.  :)
Dear Frenzie are you out of your mind?
Since when Germans are morally superior to anyone? Superior?? Even Pygmies have higher moral standards.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2016-08-06, 02:45:04
…G. Washington gave wise counsel, when he cautioned our young nation to eschew "entangling alliances" with Europe…
The next generation of Europeans -without NATO- might well bring war back to the continent. (Of course, ISIL doesn't have to wait! :( )
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: Frenzie on 2016-08-06, 08:52:58
At least Washington is closer to Jefferson than Einstein… Perhaps the US should also avoid entangling alliances with the US south if it wishes to avoid war?

(Also, what war is there to bring back? There's a war in Donbass right now.)
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: Belfrager on 2016-08-06, 13:57:11
The next generation of Europeans -without NATO- might well bring war back to the continent.
Next generation of Europeans don't go into war, they surrender first.
Europe still exists because even worst than our decadence it's our enemy incompetency. We should not rely on that forever.

NATO is not a matter of alliance but simply to get laid with an enemy in order to maintain the others away. Europe has no option but acting as a mistress. An expensive mistress.

All that, of course, was the old classical geo strategy outlook. Current reality is beyond all those concepts, countries don't exist anymore, alliances are a farce, wars a tv show, once free societies turned into consumerist soul extermination camps, new terrorism a daily constant anywhere and the only thing that really is going on it's mankind being into slavery by forces we can't clearly identify it's origin and/or nature.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: rjhowie on 2016-08-06, 23:42:02
If NATO disappeared there would be no war situation in Europe as we live in different times.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: Belfrager on 2016-08-07, 10:55:37
If NATO disappeared there would be no war situation in Europe as we live in different times.
Times of peace and harmony...  :faint:
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2016-08-08, 07:57:56
"Once all the Germans were war-like and mean… But that couldn't happen again! We taught them a lesson in 1918 — and they've hardly bothered us since then."
Satire is a dying art, I'm afraid. But thanks to printing and audio-recording, some of the best stuff is still available!
(Try this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3j20voPS0gI )
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: Belfrager on 2016-08-26, 22:43:24
"Once all the Germans were war-like and mean... But that couldn't happen again! We taught them a lesson in 1918 -- and they've hardly bothered us since then."
Germans, Russians and Jews. The holy trinity.
I forgot the Anglo Saxons, that makes a... quaternity??
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: ersi on 2016-08-27, 06:59:19
Germans, Russians and Jews. The holy trinity.
I forgot the Anglo Saxons, that makes a... quaternity??
Quartet.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: krake on 2016-08-27, 07:09:34
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QugLFzedHzk[/video]
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: rjhowie on 2016-08-28, 01:00:12
Well as are heading out of the EU mess-up your problem boy. And you have a forgetful memory of us as we helped you during Napoleonic times!
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: midnight raccoon on 2016-08-28, 02:35:33
So two hundred years ago you guys were helpful to the future EU members? Wow, that was just like yesterday and ever so relevant! :yes:
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2016-08-28, 05:48:08
Germans, Russians and Jews. The holy trinity.
It always seems to come back to the Jews, for you Europeans, doesn't it?
You'all just love to hate! You deserve your Muslim immigrants…
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: krake on 2016-08-28, 08:13:10
You'all just love to hate! You deserve your Muslim immigrants…
Any plans on hold for bombing another country or for some regime changes?
It's the best way to punish us with even more immigrants.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: rjhowie on 2016-08-28, 19:12:25
And you don't have them blowing people up? And by the way if your corner had not led the West into getting involved in Islam places things might have been a whole damn lot better. Islam and democracy are difficult and time you noticed that.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: Frenzie on 2016-08-29, 16:34:22
Unlike the UK or the Netherlands, Germany formally protested against the Iraq War.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: rjhowie on 2016-08-29, 19:33:18
Well, well done to the Jerries. Much of the folk here were niot that keen on it and proved right.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: Belfrager on 2016-08-29, 22:17:04
Unlike the UK or the Netherlands, Germany formally protested against the Iraq War.
Those forbidden to have an army always protests against army needs.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: jax on 2016-10-01, 09:56:26
As for J. Stoltenberg, he has little to say within the NATO. He is merely the chief propagandist for public relations.

He's just marketing an autobiography about his period as Prime Minister of Norway (i.e. pre-NATO). To paraphrase a live Q&A session on now: "I have been criticised for being conflict averse, but it is not a bad thing. If you swipe conflicts under the rug they often go away for good."
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: rjhowie on 2016-10-02, 00:46:41
NATO is a hangover from the past and used almost imperially.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: Belfrager on 2016-10-04, 22:44:28
NATO is a hangover from the past and used almost imperially.
Good to know that the Scottish forces, even using skirts, will protect the western world.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: rjhowie on 2016-10-06, 00:47:48
Well we at least can afford such whereas you have the begging bowl to Brussels to keep going.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: Belfrager on 2016-10-15, 13:12:51
Brussels? we need no Brussels, we have submarines.
German submarines, UB-40, the Mercedes like type, convertible version for the hot summer days.
You don't.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: rjhowie on 2016-10-16, 22:38:38
Our subs are in practice a lot better and more powerful!
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: Belfrager on 2016-10-18, 22:52:50
Our subs
Yes, you are the subs of Americans.  The fifth column infiltrated.
You were never, ever, anything but that.

Time to be exposed, time to be expulsed, brexit with you, bye bye traitors.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: rjhowie on 2016-10-18, 23:01:33
Haha so it is not submarines!

Unfortunately you have a point Belfrager in that my country is damn well playing a poodle to the global imperialist lot.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: Belfrager on 2016-10-18, 23:06:20
Unfortunately you have a point Belfrager in that my country is damn well playing a poodle to the global imperialist lot.
Our countries are not what they used to be RjHowie....
Never surrender.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: rjhowie on 2016-10-20, 15:17:27
The words 'never surrender' means much to me and I will never of course. On a little side step I always thought it sad that your country lost it's monarchy but anyway you are right on that statement.

rj
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2016-10-21, 00:36:38
Interesting: Portugal and Scotland squabbling… Peas in a pod? No. Pissants…
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: rjhowie on 2016-10-21, 01:02:26
You really are daft at times Oakdale even though i make up for you being as Yank. So desperate to be satirical you totally miss the obvious even to an ex-colonist and that is we were on the same ground! No wonder you lot are in a pickle over there.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2016-10-21, 01:45:05
we were on the same ground!
…digging the hole deeper. There's an old expression you wouldn't know that applies. :) (Knowing how well you use the inter-webs, I'll give it to you here: When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging!)
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: rjhowie on 2016-10-21, 22:10:40
You have a point there and if I was digging one in your head would resale what a pointless effort.  :happy:
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2016-10-22, 04:46:05
if I was digging one in your head would resale what a pointless effort
Could you express that thought in English, please?
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: rjhowie on 2016-10-22, 19:30:56
Hhhm. To a Yank? Says a lot!
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2016-10-23, 05:16:35
"resale"…? Your spell-checker is smarter than you, RJ!
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: Belfrager on 2016-10-23, 12:09:56
An interesting fact I was not aware, there are only fifteen aircraft carriers in the world, ten of them being Americans.

Russia has only one, the Admiral Kuznetsov, in this very moment being under close surveillance by the Portuguese Marine and Air Force, in it's way towards Syria altogether with more eight ships and one submarine Russian fleet.

As obvious, the entire Nato's military and intelligence mechanism is at some level of alert.
While Europe keeps accepting the USA as part of the democratic western world, therefore an ally, Nato is fundamental.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: rjhowie on 2016-10-23, 21:31:28
I must say Belfrager that what Russia is doing with naval ships is not illegal nor a threat to the damn West in it's hypo nonsense with Russia. One British main newspaper on a routine report mentioned that the Russian ships were being monitored "through British waters." How stupid is that as they were not in British waters at all as everyone knows. The fleet was in solidly international waters but the West as usual being controlled by you know who goes into this stupidity as if Russia was planning to attack the West. It is so damn stupid. Mind you the same nonsense came up in the 1905 war between Imperial Russia and Japan when a fleet of Tsarist ships sailed through the international Channel and our navy was rattled into the same nonsense. Maybe someone should have reminded that Japan is far away.

The NATO rubbish is going into daft mode and the Americans as usual push troops into the Baltic States on a load of nonsense that Russia wants to invade.  Russia is not a threat to world peace it is the loony stuff coming out of DC and the rest of us in the West just tally along with as poodles.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2016-10-24, 05:21:15
Russia is not a threat to world peace it is the loony stuff coming out of DC and the rest of us in the West just tally along with as poodles.
But…but — aren't you talking about countries with "wide" democracy? :)

I hear-tell, that 40 million Russian citizens recently participated in "civil defense" exercises against a nuclear attack… If anti-ballistic missile technology is "provocative," what is this? I mean, besides Russian paranoia? (Or do they still fear China as an aggressor? :) )

Tell Crimea and the rest of Ukraine that… And what would Russia do to maintain its only Mediterranean port, in Syria?
Your understanding of Russia's foreign policy (as well as America's) extends to the suburbs of Glasgow; and we know -because you told us- folks thereabout twice rejected you for political office! (A good example of your "wide" democracy, I'd say!) You only have prejudices… But you're consistent: You'll bash your "enemy," the U.S., even if it means extolling the "virtues" of your "friend," Russia!
(You'd be a Trump voter, if you could; in the hopes that The Donald would "deal" with Putin… :) )
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: krake on 2016-10-24, 10:12:57
the Admiral Kuznetsov, in this very moment being under close surveillance by the Portuguese Marine and Air Force
:D

While Europe keeps accepting the USA as part of the democratic western world, therefore an ally, Nato is fundamental.
Neither are we considered nor are we treated as allies (f*ck the EU).
We are vassals. From your point of view it's an existential vassalage...
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: krake on 2016-10-24, 10:28:55
Russia is not a threat to world peace it is the loony stuff coming out of DC and the rest of us in the West just tally along with as poodles.
Tell Crimea and the rest of Ukraine that…
For Crimeans Russia was a savior. They are happy for leaving that mess.
As for the Ukraine it is in a worse shape it ever was. You are aware that the country is bankrupt, aren't you?
For US geostrategy it is a success but for the Ukrainians it is a mess. However, geostrategic interests are the only thing that matters for the USA.
Speaking of the Ukraine - who will finance endlessly that bankrupt and second largest country in Europe?
Germany? France? Italy? The UK? Portugal? Greece? Poland? The USA?
Who will pay for their gas bill this year? Winter is comming, ya know?

And what would Russia do to maintain its only Mediterranean port, in Syria?
Napalm like the USA did in Fallujah?  :left:   Depleted uranium after US paragon?  :left:

However the adequate question would be - what would the USA do after setting the whole region on fire for "regime changes"?
Without US involvement we wouldn't witness a civil war in Syria today, no Islamic State. Plans for regime change were drawn already before 2012.
So how far will the USA go to engineer its geostrategic interests in the region?
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: rjhowie on 2016-10-25, 00:31:07
You are so spot on krake regarding Crimea and I said while ago that it was a Godsend for the province to GO BACK to Russia where the majority always wanted to be. America only takes an interest in referendums if it suits THEM. Crimeans will be better off in the long run and even pensions are higher and Russia building a bridge  over the sea. The wonderfully principled West leader, America fully supported the insurrection against the Ukraine Government when that mess started. I am not saying that the then government was A1 but it was a democratic decision. Now Ukraine is deep in debt, corrupt as hell and has neo-Nazis in parliament/government. Ukrainians still celebrate their own WW2 Nazi leader who was also responsible for their own SS units.

Trump for all his passing negatives IS right that a President should be trying to discuss with the President of Russia. The media is a top of the range expert system constantly attacking Russia for not damn good reason as it is a country they cannot control politically or in the corporate sphere. NATO is a hang over from the past and a financial waste of money never mind anything else.  The attitude towards Putin and Russia is a tormented and specially created hysteria to take minds off other things and NATO should have been scrubbed years ago.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2016-10-25, 02:40:18
As for the Ukraine it is in a worse shape it ever was.
You're young; Howie's old. Neither of you know much of history…
Quote
Starting from the late 1920s with a centrally planned economy, Ukraine was involved in Soviet industrialisation and the republic's industrial output quadrupled during the 1930s. The peasantry suffered from the programme of collectivisation of agriculture which began during and was part of the first five-year plan and was enforced by regular troops and secret police. Those who resisted were arrested and deported and agricultural productivity greatly declined. As members of the collective farms were not allowed to receive any grain until sometimes unrealistic quotas were met, millions starved to death in a famine known as Holodomor or "Great Famine".

Scholars are divided as to whether this famine fits the definition of genocide, but the Ukrainian parliament and other countries have declared it as such.

The Communist leadership perceived famine as a means of class struggle and used starvation as a punishment tool to force peasants into collective farms.
Two future leaders of the Soviet Union, Nikita Khrushchev (pre-war CPSU chief in Ukraine) and Leonid Brezhnev (an engineer from Kamianske) depicted together.

Largely the same groups were responsible for the mass killing operations during the civil war, collectivisation, and the Great Terror. These groups were associated with Yefim Yevdokimov (1891–1939) and operated in the Secret Operational Division within General State Political Administration (OGPU) in 1929–31. Evdokimov transferred into Communist Party administration in 1934, when he became Party secretary for North Caucasus Krai. He appears to have continued advising Joseph Stalin and Nikolai Yezhov on security matters, and the latter relied on Evdokimov's former colleagues to carry out the mass killing operations that are known as the Great Terror in 1937–38.

On 13 January 2010, Kiev Appellate Court posthumously found Stalin, Kaganovich and other Soviet Communist Party functionaries guilty of genocide against Ukrainians during the Holodomor famine.
Wikipedia is the source of the quote; your sources are…?
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: Belfrager on 2016-10-25, 05:41:04
Neither are we considered nor are we treated as allies (f*ck the EU).
We are vassals. From your point of view it's an existential vassalage...
By my point of view it's just simple pragmatism. Do you have any alternative? no, you don't.
Decades and decades of pacifism turned Europe into a defenseless sheep. Between the bad and the worst, Nato is the only guarantee against Putin.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: krake on 2016-10-25, 08:23:30
As for the Ukraine it is in a worse shape it ever was.
You're young; Howie's old. Neither of you know much of history…
Since you seem to be a Wikipedia-expert in European history, lemme tell you something.
Neither did I mean the Ukraine during the Neolithic nor during the centuries after.
We can hardly speak of an Ukrainian state during those times. I meant the Ukraine as an independent state since 1991.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: krake on 2016-10-25, 08:25:18
Neither are we considered nor are we treated as allies (f*ck the EU).
We are vassals. From your point of view it's an existential vassalage...
By my point of view it's just simple pragmatism. Do you have any alternative? no, you don't.
Decades and decades of pacifism turned Europe into a defenseless sheep. Between the bad and the worst, Nato is the only guarantee against Putin.
The reasoning for your 'pragmatism' is well-known to me. :)
Instead of an European army decoupled from NATO/USA you prefer European vassalage. USA = bad, Germany = worse - while the rest of Europe doesn't seem to matter in your equation.
No need to exert Putin therefore. Chances that an asteroid could flatten Portugal are higher than a Russian invasion. :D

As for decades and decades of European pacifism you deplore, may I remind you that Europeans were/are unfortunately present in several conflicts/wars as vassals (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria - to name just a few).
BTW, any wars you'd suggest for Europe to start? Eventually under Portuguese commandership? :left:
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: rjhowie on 2016-10-26, 00:47:23
OakdaleFTL is a regular Yank so he has to trace history so nothing outstanding from him! The attitude of NATO and it's secretary is like something out of a comic book rather than anything serious or in depth. Indeed the anti-Russian rhetoric is like Dr Goebells stuff. The media and politicians join the hype and neo-fanaticism about Russia and President Putin. Kind of laughable being led by a country that needs hundreds of bases across the world for "protection - uh?

The thing was really set up as a an anti-Warsaw Pact thing bu then the USSR and that corner collapsed  instead of common sense the usual imperial nonsense had to presume. Any place that does not give in to the West and especially the US leadership and corporate sector is going to be badly done to. NATO is a control freak a big expense and is not necessary at all. Instead of moaning about the members who do not pay enough in and leave it to the  glory hunting US of A the thing should be got rid of and just think of the poor in certain places that could bring benefit to!
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2016-10-26, 00:54:27
Listening to Howie, it's easy to understand how England lost her empire… :)
He should, however (as so should all others…) be glad that the U.S. is, by the nature of its governmental structure, incompetent at empire. (I, for one, wish it to remain so! No republic ever maintained an empire. Such empirical evidence is not to be discounted.)
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: Frenzie on 2016-10-26, 18:53:31
No republic ever maintained an empire.
The Roman Republic was an empire for centuries before it had an emperor. I'd say it maintained alright.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: ersi on 2016-10-26, 20:32:57
Oakdale doesn't know what an empire looks like. Such as the nominally republican Roman state or nominally federal Soviet state. Or the de facto colonial United States. No wonder he also doesn't know what democracy looks like and what the historical examples are.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: Belfrager on 2016-10-26, 20:52:03
Instead of an European army decoupled from NATO/USA you prefer European vassalage. USA = bad, Germany = worse - while the rest of Europe doesn't seem to matter in your equation.
European army? don't make me laugh.

You are the one desiring vassalage, vassalage to a well done, perfect, KGB strategy:

Phase 1 - During the Soviet regime - explore all the horrors created by Germany during Nazism and WWII to massively finance pacifism in Europe. Result is done, absolutely no capacity to defense.
Phase 2 - After the Soviets - massive finance into  all the"Russia Today" and the kind to make Europe to reject and insult the only help it can get. No American public opinion will ever accept to send their children again to die for rjhowies and krakes.
Phase 3 - After NATO disintegration, the final move - annexation.
The End.

Bunch of imbeciles. Keep that way and we'll be forced to adress each others by Comrades.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: rjhowie on 2016-10-27, 01:15:15
Typical rubbish on history from Oakdale about no republic having an empire. France immediately rubbishes that. America had a financial and corporate empire and couldn't care a damn about places they de-stabilised or attacked as the control would be through the corporate controllers.

As for a European Army we were against that rubbish anyway and is another laughable nonsense. After all the US controllers of NATO have had to moan for ages with countries not paying their share and ignoring the 2% line.NATO is a hangover from the past and being used for corporate control as much as anything else.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: krake on 2016-10-27, 08:08:47
Bunch of imbeciles. Keep that way and we'll be forced to adress each others by Comrades.
Don't worry. Krakes won't address you with "Kamerad". Sometimes we prefer the "Arschloch" term.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2016-10-27, 08:24:21
 :o
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: rjhowie on 2016-10-27, 21:32:47
Russia is not a damn threat Belfrager. It is the stuff conjured up by the USA and brained into the rest of the West helped by media fanaticism. It gives an excuse to continue with NATO and the corporate military industry. It frustrates the would-vbe leader of the free world that there is a place it cannot control or control it's business, etc. Indeed it is also frustrated because it cannot control the present situation either hence all the military build up guff we are getting.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2016-10-28, 00:20:04
As I've said before, RJ is a modern OrangeMan: A mixture of Red and Yellow… :)
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: rjhowie on 2016-10-28, 01:30:44
(Groan) One has to put up with redneck ignorance as a fact of life. The two colours of the brotherhood are orange and purple!

When it comes to associating colours dear man use white for ex-colonists as they have given into surrendering to their ultra-nationalism and and controlled (not by democracy of course!).  :hat:
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: rjhowie on 2016-10-28, 01:39:36
On a more general note I dare say that if it rained too hard the Russians would get the blame for that. Just a day or two ago Amnesty International stated that the US led coalition re Syria had killed 400 civilians but they don't count as they weren't done in by Russia.  In another recent "bombing incident" where a school was partly hit the White House blamed it on the Russians/Syrian Government but there was something very odd about the pictures.  From above NO CRATERS or anything lie them. Filming showed that it was more likely a shelling from ground level. Russia asked for an independent enquiry but silence.  When America was queried about their raids the White House came out with stuff that they were very technical and didn't kill civilians! Eh?  When you consider the killings in a very regular fashion of Afghanistanis including repeated weddings makes you wonder. So one sie has plane bombs but don't kill civilians?

Now here is another thing. How come there is no general news reporting on the rebels in east Aleppo who regularly shell the west of the city and kill civilians and damages schools, etc? it is high time NATO was scrapped and the money spent on something more constructive than creating stupid propaganda to keep imperial and corporate minds in power.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: Belfrager on 2016-10-28, 05:41:44
Russia is not a damn threat Belfrager
Putin smiles...
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: rjhowie on 2016-10-29, 00:40:05
Cobblers.

You like so many the brain soaked people swallow nonsense. Russia has stated it has no military intentions in eastern Europe at all but that does not suit the America led West poodle lot including your place. Even in the UN the country has been voted off the admin on aid yet a damn place like the Saudi Arabia dung pit is as democratic as the old USSR, Nazi Germany or the long days of Portuguese dictatorship. Saudi Arabia is principled, eh? The examples of bias stuff about Syria is pathetic and the routine examples of the two-faced stuff from the West. Apart from my info you ignored the BBC reported tonight that an ISIS attempt is being made to break the government siege of east Aleppo and who was fighting with them? The "moderates" the West supplies!

You like so many have been fooled by the West propagandist and media which in turn is string pulled by politicians and who leads this junk to follow but the corporate and imperialistic West leader which does not like having anywhere it cannot control of get it's corporate bosses to influence. You are being dumbed by the Yanks and the controlled media there and across the West. Keeping NATO afloat all sorts of conjured up propaganda is cobbled up because the West cannot bludgeon Russia into it's submission control like elsewhere. it is a wonder you and others do not have a picture of the clever Dr Goebells on the wall.  :hat:
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2016-10-29, 05:27:19
RJ, you might like Fred Reed's latest screed… (http://www.unz.com/freed/the-loosening-grip/) :)
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: krake on 2016-10-29, 08:51:21
@OakdaleFTL

I don't know Fred Reed and what he stands for.
However, I was surprised about his frankness for using two terms: "Empire" and "Vassals".
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2016-10-29, 10:09:15
Fred Reed, in his public life, was first an American Marine; an admirable position. Then he was a journalist — for Soldier of Fortune magazine… He stayed in south-east Asia beyond his "sell-by" date. :) He is a self-described "curmudgeon".
He's also -in my opinion- a straight shooter.
You folks without the benefit of the U.S. Second Amendment don't really appreciate that locution… :)
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: ersi on 2016-10-29, 10:20:06
You folks without the benefit of the U.S. Second Amendment don't really appreciate that locution… :)
Is there any benefit to the Second Amendment other than some figure of speech? You have licences to carry guns, like in the rest of the world, right? You have the distinction of legal and illegal guns, like in the rest of the world, right? So, your benefits are just imaginary and rhetorical.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: Belfrager on 2016-10-29, 10:49:06
Is there any benefit to the Second Amendment other than some figure of speech? You have licences to carry guns, like in the rest of the world, right? You have the distinction of legal and illegal guns, like in the rest of the world, right? So, your benefits are just imaginary and rhetorical.
Indeed. Imaginary, rhetorical and a boring obsession.

(By the way, what's the First Amendment? and the last one? Any amendment soon? Amendment of amendments?
Fantastic system.)

Back to NATO and the dream of European armies, the biggest European army is the British one. Brexit is clear about what side they are regarding Europe.
The rest? French nuclear power, obviously never to be used, and... and what more?
Not to speak about the impossibility of an united command of such imaginary European armies.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: Mr. Tennessee on 2016-10-29, 12:33:01
Yet the President of France said publicly that there is no problem with Putin or Russia re France.
"Last week, Russian President Vladimir Putin cancelled his planned trip to Paris after President Francois Hollande questioned the usefulness of a meeting with the Russian leader, citing the situation in Aleppo. However, according to Expert magazine contributor Igor Gashkov, Russia's the one with the grievance – and the reason is simple.

Hollande's demarche consisted of refusing to attend the opening of a church and Russian cultural center in the French capital, which President Putin was set to attend. According to Igor Gashkov, Elysee Palace effectively intended to turn the visit into a demonstration – a sign "that Paris does not feel solidarity with Moscow on any issue," not even culture."
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: krake on 2016-10-29, 21:09:17
"According to Igor Gashkov, ..."
It doesn't hurt to give the source (https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201610151046371176-french-russian-relations-crisis-over-syria/). ;)
Reading the entire article might give a better picture...
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2016-10-30, 01:03:51
Amendment of amendments?
The 18th was rescinded by the 21st… Prohibition as a national law was prohibited. :)
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: rjhowie on 2016-10-30, 05:41:05
When you look at the history of the ex-colonies right through the 20th century one of corruption and tut-tut stuff. now they bang Russia for the same stuff. Recently Lithuania has issued an instruction booklet to citizens should Russia invade. NATO also started playing war games towards Russia to. At no time has Russia nor it's President said or indicated that it had any interest in invading anyone - well they don''t wave stars and stripes do they? The utter nonsense has been created to justify NATO and the propaganda and almost hysteria being bashed across the west has been of stupid proportions and I am not surprised Russia has done training in their OWN country. The whole NATO basis of all this militarism was created by the corporate and imperialist leader. When there is a nation that cannot be controlled by the West or taken over corporately out with the guns is the next step. Well NATO led by it's clowns can play soldiers as they wish but have no choice but to steer away from direct war because they would not win it. Indeed that is why the propaganda and hysteria has been stirred up. With so many people who grew up during the Cold war it is almost easy to brain people. Mind you it is a handy excuse for trying to take the world's mind away from the laughable election very shortly!
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: ersi on 2016-10-30, 07:46:05
At no time has Russia nor it's President said or indicated that it had any interest in invading anyone - well they don''t wave stars and stripes do they?
By this standard, England/UK and their kings and queens never invaded anyone either. They don't wave stars and stripes, do they?
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: Belfrager on 2016-10-30, 09:39:29
a sign "that Paris does not feel solidarity with Moscow on any issue," not even culture."
France always was the European reference for culture and Paris the sophisticated capital of Europe. In the last years, the French lost their place when English language turned universal and "culture" started being sold in supermarkets along with toillet paper.

Putin's dreams of presenting Moscow back to Catherine's time as a brilliant center attracting Descartes and lá créme de lá créme  is just that, a dream. French are seeing Brexit as their opportunity for a come back to the European top.

Meanwhile, de facto, New York is still the cultural capital of the world. As everybody knows, New York is not American, it's a kind of Stateless City.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: rjhowie on 2016-10-31, 03:39:04
Are you trying to be daft ersi? Will explain it slowly. We - are - talking - about - the  - modern - world - and - today.

Try and face the issue the hypocrisy of the West the propaganda mania and hysteria. Lie after damn lie  It shows the kindergarten mindset across the pond that the propagandists can brain people into the guff going on. They are trying the same here via politics and media but there are too many ex-colonists who have been insulted and brained into nonsense. Now come on now the keech about Russia trying to control elections in America?! when you think about what the "leader of the Free World" has done on corruption, world politics, de-stabilising and invading places the mind controllers think they can now get away with anything. I dare say they are blazing mad their corporates cannot take Russia over or do a war so the next thing is to brain people with propaganda. The simple answer to the stance is this....tosh. Oh and one thing in passing about one Presidential candidate who would maybe want rid of NATO now that is a sensible exception to things!
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: ersi on 2016-10-31, 04:20:37
Are you trying to be daft ersi? Will explain it slowly. We - are - talking - about - the  - modern - world - and - today.
Sure. In modern days it qualifies as colonisation only if you wave stars and stripes. Makes sense.

And annexation of Crimea is not colonization because Crimea "always" belonged to Russia, like in good old Stalin times. Which is all modern times. Right.

The thing is, Russian ideologues view all countries between Sweden and Germany and itself as a temporary phase, soon to be normalised, i.e. eliminated. Always did so, since Ivan the Terrible. Some say it even with regard to Sweden and Germany themselves. That's an ongoing colonisation project.

Meanwhile, UK is still not properly de-colonised. Northern Ireland and many other pieces all around the world have not been returned to their proper owners.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: Belfrager on 2016-11-01, 13:30:59
MI5 reads the forum and Rjhowie let their chief irritated...
MI5 chief Andrew Parker in warning over 'increasingly aggressive' Russia (http://news.sky.com/story/mi5-chief-andrew-parker-in-warning-over-increasingly-aggressive-russia-10640442)
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2016-11-02, 20:51:20
For those Americans who don't know: MI5 is the British equivalent of our FBI, in terms of security and anti-spying. MI6 is more like our CIA…
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: rjhowie on 2016-11-03, 01:37:04
Well Belfrager you have to be reminded that all the stupid anti-Russia cobblers started in America. Our leaders of the "free world" (groan) are in a mess politically and economically. Champions of accusing other countries of terrible things they freely do themselves. The media who are in the same room as the corporate political control mindsets do not like any country that the US cannot control politically and militarily.  So NATO is a great asset for the nutjobland to take minds away from the actual truth. Russia will not be controlled by the US corporates and get nowhere militarily so slagging off Russia is their alternative. magazine after magazine with anti-Putin stuff from the front page onwards. NATO can do practices all they like in eastern europe of utter nonsense to take minds off the hard facts of life.  Do we get the same guff in newspapers? Yes we damn well do but we aren't all so easily fooled as in some other places.

Get rid of NATO.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: Belfrager on 2016-11-03, 12:53:30
For those Americans who don't know: MI5 is the British equivalent of our FBI, in terms of security and anti-spying. MI6 is more like our CIA…
I'm not sure of that, MI5 it's a pure secret service while the FBI acts more (or also as) like a federal or nation wide police. The CIA would be MI5+MI6 (internal and external).

I suppose British have some more MI something but I don't know, I'm not a Burguess.... or Philby.... or Maclean... or....  :devil:
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2016-11-03, 22:23:57
The CIA would be MI5+MI6 (internal and external
The CIA is forbidden by law to operate domestically…
The FBI is empowered to investigate only federal crimes. And it doesn't have full police powers.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: rjhowie on 2016-11-04, 03:05:51
No you're "not" Belfrager and have to sigh in a poor corner with the begging bowl to Europe. :devil:
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: Belfrager on 2016-11-05, 09:19:32
Begging bowl? there you have the begging bowl...

(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F5dHy3ci.png&hash=ad6e8ae0d363d7acbf407e7d72a429d6" rel="cached" data-hash="ad6e8ae0d363d7acbf407e7d72a429d6" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/5dHy3ci.png)

Are you also interested in a list about treason to Europe, Rjhowie? it's a very simple one, just one country list.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2016-11-05, 09:34:20
How does the U.S. factor into this? :) I mean, how can Howie go on, if he can't blame/castigate/denigrate us?
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: Belfrager on 2016-11-05, 09:45:46
How does the U.S. factor into this? :) I mean, how can Howie go on, if he can't blame/castigate/denigrate us?
Keep the Americans in, the Russians out and the Germans down - that was NATO's objective.
Rjhowie wants America and Russia to change sides... it's unclear what he wants to Germany.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2016-11-05, 09:56:02
That's the first coherent post you've made in many a moon, Bel!
Do you remember that great British (PBS) show, "Rilley, Ace of Spies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reilly,_Ace_of_Spies)"?

Russia, of course, is a meek and not in the least mendacious "partner" in the new world order… :)
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: rjhowie on 2016-11-06, 03:17:36
May I remind the poor Portuguese man and you Oakdale that we put a hell of a lot more into the EU. As for Belfrager's NATO contribution as being something you  can ally to is only another despairing thing to add to your daft across the pond thinking.  NATO is NOT needed and the brained stuff we get on Russia being a threat is so child-like it be listed as daft. Who has caused more war trouble since WW2 has more bases around the world than anyone - spends have the whole world's military bill and so on? The added fact that so many ex-colonisist are fed the laughable bunk via that silly woman Clinton that their electoral process is being messed up by Russia. You lot did that yourselves and that along with NATO used as excuse to militarily control the world.The only people making anything of the NATO nonsense with Russia are the corporate military suppliers you-know-where.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2016-11-06, 03:30:41
Of course, RJ means Israel… Being ignorant of economics and history has its advantages! :) (Also, being unable to understand English — no offense meant, to those who actually have other languages.)

I agree that NATO has reached it's "sell by" date. Europe should be able to take care of itself. And, certainly, if Glasgow is attacked – well, I'd expect a Howie to stand up and do his duty!
He'd not be craven enough to call upon the might of the "cousins," would he? :)
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: Belfrager on 2016-11-06, 12:49:42

Europe should be able to take care of itself.
Europe reached a new civilizational level where there will be no wars anymore, everybody is happy and candies are for free. A dream come true for Miss Universe.
Was not for my warmongering rhetoric and everything would be just like paradise.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: rjhowie on 2016-11-06, 19:20:16
Israel? What a load of old cobblers and the palsie walsies of America. hardly surprising when you consider the power Jews have on the ex-colonies corporate influence.  On top of that the Israel corner thinks it can damn well get away with anything because fawning America is hand in glove with them.

As for my home domain it is a city with a tremendous military excellence in both the 1st and 2nd World Wars. And as for us needing a bunch of John Wayne or Eddie Murphy copiers don't make me laugh. Some years ago my brother was involved in the world famous Edinburgh Military tattoo. There was a US group involved and he was a Colour-Sergeant in the top notch and crack paras. He got into a passing chat with a US sergeant who was quite bright (does happen) and he was overawed at the standards of my brother's regiment and the more professional influence and experience NCO's had.  Anyway I stand by what I say and that NATO is a waste of time and an awful lot of US money that could be better pent helping the massive numbers of poor and left behinds in the country.

And as I well pointed out the US led West NATO nonsense will get nowhere with Russia  and no-one has ever yet given a positive reason why you need hundreds of military bases all over the world. You cannot even run your own country right but make a tried alternative with military dictatorship.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: krake on 2016-11-06, 22:32:46

(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F5dHy3ci.png&hash=ad6e8ae0d363d7acbf407e7d72a429d6" rel="cached" data-hash="ad6e8ae0d363d7acbf407e7d72a429d6" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/5dHy3ci.png)

Public dept out of any context tells nothing.
One can have 100.000 € dept with an annual income of 100.000 € whereas someone else can have 100.000 € dept with an annual income of 8.000 €. ;)

(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.debtclocks.eu%2Frankings2015%2Feu-ranking-public-debt-in-percent-of-gdp.png&hash=ba33c9086a6e56fe1ae6896f03d3d2a7" rel="cached" data-hash="ba33c9086a6e56fe1ae6896f03d3d2a7" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://www.debtclocks.eu/rankings2015/eu-ranking-public-debt-in-percent-of-gdp.png)

source (http://www.debtclocks.eu/eu-ranking-public-debt-in-percent-of-gdp.html)
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: Belfrager on 2016-11-07, 22:12:46
No wonder dear krake you runaway as hell from the only indicator that means something.
You are much more in debt than I'm am and you don't have any clue about how much rich I am...

Basically, stop playing the whore music.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: rjhowie on 2016-11-09, 00:59:22
Uh-oh krake watch out for a Portuguese invasion.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: jax on 2016-11-09, 14:42:44
I am mostly curious: What is whore music, what does it sound like? Tango?
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: jax on 2016-11-11, 01:11:18
Recent events has probably scuppered plans for Sweden and Finland to join NATO for the time being. To quote the Swedish prime minister and leader of the main party opposed to membership: "Do we want to be in a military alliance with Trump and Erdogan?"
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2016-11-11, 01:14:08
That's a pretty compelling argument, jax… (And, no, I'm not being sarcastic.)
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: krake on 2016-11-11, 14:40:31
Recent events has probably scuppered plans for Sweden and Finland to join NATO for the time being. To quote the Swedish prime minister and leader of the main party opposed to membership: "Do we want to be in a military alliance with Trump and Erdogan?"
A threadbare argument to say the least.
Wasn't Billary an advocate of the Iraq war and of bombing Libya?
Besides, what about an alliance with a women who had the bright idea (http://truepundit.com/under-intense-pressure-to-silence-wikileaks-secretary-of-state-hillary-clinton-proposed-drone-strike-on-julian-assange/) to consider Julian Assange a soft target and drone him away.
The same women who also collected 'donations' from those who also finance 'moderate' ISIL.

Whatever politicians affirm and whatever the reason for rethinking accedence to NATO might be, I can't imagine it has something to do neither with Erdogan nor with Trump. They only serve as a convenient plea.
No president stays in office forever. I assume this is well-known in Sweden and Finland. ;)
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: rjhowie on 2016-11-11, 18:54:24
Instead of the stupid nonsense of Clinton on Russia I hope that prospective President Trump will shows some more common sense than Clinton and meet with his counterpart in Moscow.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: Belfrager on 2016-11-13, 11:49:29
He will need a multitude of advisors alongside with him whispering... read card nº2 mr president.... read card nº4 mr president...
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: rjhowie on 2016-11-13, 23:15:30
That is a most unfortunate routine of the ex-colonist idea of a political system however he is very right to challenge the NATO nonsense. That organisation strides across the world as if it owns it and having been created by you-know-who an expected direction. The new President I actually think will be less militarily confrontational than what we have been stuck with in the world and that IS a positive if he practices it. 
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2016-11-19, 11:10:16
The ONLY reason I'd support NATO is obvious: Europeans have been warring and killing each other for centuries. America'a ascendency as a world power and it's continued presence in Europe was the main factor "allowing" the EU…
If we leave, you'll return to your old ways… :(

You won't defend yourselves; but you'll gladly return to slaughtering each other!

I hope I'm wrong. But history is what it is…
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: ersi on 2016-11-19, 12:25:50
Is it really because of your concern for Europeans or is it just a pretext to keep yourself militarily busy all over the world, so that home would seem comparatively peaceful? Because history is history, as you say, and US history is at least as bloody as European, and that given a far shorter time. And US history is just an offshoot of UK history anyway.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: Frenzie on 2016-11-19, 14:18:44
I find it hard to distill the actual argument, if any. Besides that, for better and worse, Americans are Europeans.[1] American culture is primarily a blend developed out of the initial English and Dutch settlements on the east coast.
Mostly better I'd say, your average Asian might well argue that most Europeans from Europe and both Americas would say exactly that. Excepting perhaps a few countries like Ecuador, Peru or Bolivia, which have experienced a decidedly smaller percentage of European exodus or genocide.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: Belfrager on 2016-11-19, 14:58:42
Everybody is European and nobody is European.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: Belfrager on 2016-11-19, 21:55:26
Thanks to God we, Iberians, are separated from "Europeans" by the Pirenees.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: Frenzie on 2016-11-20, 08:50:19
Carles li reis, nostre emperere magnes,
Set anz tuz pleins ad estet en Espaigne :
Tresqu’en la mer cunquist la tere altaigne.
N’i ad castel ki devant lui remaignet ;
Murs ne citet n’i est remés à fraindre
Fors Sarraguce, k’est en une muntaigne.
Li reis Marsilies la tient, ki Deu nen aimet ;
Mahummet sert e Apollin reclaimet :
Ne s’ poet guarder que mals ne li ataignet.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: Belfrager on 2016-11-20, 09:29:24
La Chanson de Roland? :)
Charles Magne suffered his defeat, represented in the song, precisely in the Pirenees, attacked by the Basques.

The only European to really enter and conquer the Peninsula was Napoleon. There was no NATO at the time... so we took a little bit to defeat him. :)

As for Rome, the Lusitan Wars were one of the only four wars Rome admitted to be a war, not a mere walk in the park. For seven consecutive years the Roman generals returned defeated to Rome, no triumph to comemorate. Not bad, not bad at all.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: jax on 2016-11-20, 10:57:28
A consequence of the US presidential outcome may be that Ukraine will be thrown under the bus.

Ukraine braces for Trump White House (https://www.kyivpost.com/ukraine-politics/ukraine-braces-trump-white-house.html)
Quote
In the days since the election, the mood in Kyiv remains grim as Ukrainians and foreigners fear the worst if Trump decides to mend relations with Moscow.

Without a public guarantee from Trump that his administration will remain committed to bolstering NATO and its allies on Russia’s western flank, coupled with an extension of sanctions on Russia, Ukrainians now worry that they will be exposed to Putin’s next round of imperialist impulses.


“The outcome of this election leaves the situation in Ukraine looking very bleak. I don’t see a light at the end of the tunnel for anyone,” said Reno Domenico, Democrats Abroad chairman and a 2016 Democratic National Convention delegate. “Putin has played a very weak hand brilliantly when it comes to Ukraine. He and Trump have already had a phone conversation where they pledged to cooperate with one another and to stay out of each other’s internal affairs. That, to me, sounds like the workings of a deal between the two.”


The Kremlin has praised Trump’s “America First” campaign, taking it as a signal that the incoming administration is open to the idea of signing a pact that would guarantee Moscow’s sphere of influence in the post-Soviet space.

Putin has long coveted this type of grand bargain – a Yalta II – as it would fundamentally destroy the U.S.-dominated post-Cold War order that he and Russia’s intelligence service so fervently hates.

Russia’s interference in the American election included  leaked emails from Clinton aides and the Democratic National Committe that the Kremlin is suspected of hacking. Russia also openly advocated for Trump, possibly hoping the U.S. will allow Putin to roughshod over Ukraine and other neighboring countries by helping to elect a candidate that is sympathetic to the Kremlin’s narrative.

This has caused visceral anger and a sense of anxiety amongst Kyiv’s expat business community, many of whom fear that Putin will offer incentives to Western investors in exchange for turning their attention away from Ukraine.


The stakes are high. Syria had 26 million people, Ukraine has 43 million. Syria is an Asian country, Ukraine is in the middle of Europe.

Berlin, Germany - Kiev, Ukraine 1,200 km (750 mi)
Berlin, Germany - Lisbon, Portugal 2,300 km (1,450 mi)
Berlin, Germany - Damascus, Syria 2,800 km (1,750 mi)

I don't think an all-out invasion is a likely outcome, but a continued Russian policy of destabilisation, Finlandization and occupation that has already cost 10,000 lives and displaced two million people. 
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: krake on 2016-11-20, 12:02:00
What has the Ukraine to do with NATO?  :left:
As for the destabilisation of the Ukraine, it started with the putsch of the Right Sector backed by the USA and some of its European vassals.

BTW, the below clip was recently taken from the Rada (Ukrainian parliament)

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aba3xdueZNE[/video]

Last but not least, a normalization of US-Russian relations would be for the benefit of whole Europe.
There is no single European country (the Ukraine included) benefiting from the new cold war which some are so keen to foment.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: jax on 2016-11-20, 13:05:37
Though both the US and European powers have had a long history of destabilising other regimes, and can hardly claim the moral high ground, Russia has consistently and systematically destabilised all other former Soviet republics to keep them in Russia's sphere.

The EU on the other hand, for all its flaws, has been a stabilising force. A stable and sovereign Ukraine in the EU sphere will be a successful and prosperous country. An EU association treaty would benefit both the EU and Ukraine massively, but it was stalled in the Netherlands (!) in a referendum, the first of the three democratic victories of Putin in 2016.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: Frenzie on 2016-11-20, 13:27:23
it was stalled in the Netherlands (!) in a referendum
I think I forgot to register to vote on that one, like someone who didn't vote for Hillary thinking she couldn't possibly lose against Trump.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: krake on 2016-11-20, 16:20:27
An EU association treaty would benefit both the EU and Ukraine massively, but it was stalled in the Netherlands (!) in a referendum
The EU is a (loose? (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=163.msg67629#msg67629)) bundle of countries as you know. A few of them will benefit others won't.
So far Netherlands' veto didn't come as a surprise. Be assured that if referendums would have been held all over Europe there would have been more vetoes...

As for the Ukraine, as long as corrupt oligarchs and far right nationalists (propped by Western cold war warriors) will have the saying, I doubt that even an association with aliens from planet El Dorado will help.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: rjhowie on 2016-11-20, 19:34:43
Ukraine is a self done mess.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: jax on 2016-11-21, 12:29:31
it was stalled in the Netherlands (!) in a referendum
I think I forgot to register to vote on that one, like someone who didn't vote for Hillary thinking she couldn't possibly lose against Trump.
Referendums is a miserable form of democracy, it is even a bad form of direct democracy. I think some direct democracy should be possible and desirable in our age, but any such attempt should look at referendums for how not to do it. It is applying power without accountability, which is always a bad idea.

Brexit, as referendums go, was quite successful. A lot of people voted, they were reasonably well informed about the issues, and mostly voted from that understanding of the issues. This was a decision that mattered, most people took it seriously. The question was fairly clear and even, though misleading.

Which leads to some of the shortcomings. "In" was easy enough, "out" would be several different outcomes, since that was not decided beforehand we have the mess we have today. Britons who had been living outside Britain too long were not eligible to vote, neither were EU citizen resident in Britain, but Commonwealth residents were.  Some voters didn't know or care what they were voting for, or didn't expect them to win, but that could have happened in a regular election as well. The biggest problem is that the result was a draw (52%/48%). The people had spoken, and they said: We don't know. If status quo comes on top, that mostly fine, "carry on, forget this ever happened". If one of the other choices win, it can be ugly. And referendums are likely to be close, otherwise what's the point in holding them?

Brexit was a fairly good referendum technically (apart from the closeness of the result). The US election was a mess technically. Even so, at least in my view, the "pretty good" Brexit referendum had less legitimacy than the "total mess" election. Legitimacy is another major issue with referendums, even when successful, or fairly successful. 

The Dutch referendum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Ukraine%E2%80%93European_Union_Association_Agreement_referendum,_2016) was none of the above. It's my exhibit A for why referendums are bad. The one thing it had going for it was that majority of those that voted was a clear 2:1, but hardly anyone did. Say what you want about Brexit and the US election, these were issues that mattered to the electorate. Britain inside or outside the EU, even the most insular Britons would notice. Clinton or Trump as the next US president, hardly anyone would say, "nah, it's the same, really". But it wouldn't matter to the Dutch if the Ukrainians got an EU lifeline or not. They probably never had been to the Ukraine, and more likely than not didn't know any Ukrainians personally. The referendum was ripe to be gamed, and gamed it was.

As Anne Appelbaum wrote in April (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/russias-influence-in-western-elections/2016/04/08/b427602a-fcf1-11e5-886f-a037dba38301_story.html?utm_term=.3abf6b7719bb), before Brexit and before the US election:
The Dutch just showed the world how Russia influences Western European elections

Quote
But until last week’s Dutch referendum (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35984821), we hadn’t seen a good example of how Russian influence actually works in a Western European election. The referendum, the first to be held under a new law, was launched when a populist, hoax-loving website gathered more than 300,000 signatures on a petition. Its editors were searching for an issue — any issue — and they found one: On Wednesday, Dutch citizens were asked to express their feelings about a European trade agreement with Ukraine, the same treaty that Ukrainians fought for, and died for, in February 2014.

In retrospect it is extraordinary that this treaty, designed to facilitate trade and cooperation between Ukraine and Europe, has caused any controversy at all. It is a long, technical document (http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/ukraine/eu_ukraine/association_agreement/index_en.htm), more than a thousand pages of jargon. It already went into effect, on Jan. 1. It is not unique or interesting: The European Union has many such treaties, with Chile (http://www.esf.be/new/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/eu-chile-association-agreement-2002.pdf), Jordan (http://www.enpi-info.eu/library/content/eu-jordan-association-agreement) and others. Of those who bothered to vote, it’s probably safe to say that few read it. One of the referendum’s initiators told a Ukrainian journalist of my acquaintance that he certainly hadn’t read it and wasn’t going to — but “don’t take it personally.”


It’s true that the Dutch far-left and the Dutch far-right had other goals. They used the vote to undermine a center-right, economically liberal government, and to galvanize their anti-European followers. They succeeded: On Wednesday, 32 percent (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/polls-open-in-dutch-referendum-on-eu-ukraine-trade-deal/2016/04/06/7effd1f8-fbbf-11e5-813a-90ab563f0dde_story.html)of the Dutch population turned out, just above the percentage needed to make the referendum legal, and two-thirds of them voted against the treaty.


How many of them were moved by Russian disinformation? It’s hard to say, though certainly there has been a lot of it in the Netherlands in recent years, and it accelerated in recent months. Much of it served to create extra uncertainty and fears about nonexistent Ukrainian threats. Many of the “no” campaign’s themes, headlines and even photographs were lifted directly from Russia Today and Sputnik, Russia’s state propaganda website. According to a poll cited by a Ukrainian foreign ministry official (https://www.facebook.com/dmytro.kuleba/posts/10154042667088389), 59 percent of those who voted against the treaty listed, as an important motivation, the fact that Ukraine is corrupt; 19 percent believed that Ukraine was responsible for the crash of MH-17 (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/18/world/europe/malaysian-airlines-plane-ukraine.html?_r=0), the plane that Russian separatists shot down over Ukraine in 2014; 34 percent believed that the treaty would guarantee Ukraine’s membership in the European Union. Of those three points, the second two are certainly false. The first, while true, is hardly a rational argument against a treaty designed to reduce corruption in Ukraine.

Other than that, the campaign was muddled. Far-left campaigners took Palestinian flags to “no” rallies. The far-right talked about Muslim immigrants. The Dutch government, obligated to subsidize electioneering groups, botched the job and distributed money, among other things, to a group that printed Ukrainian national symbols on toilet paper (https://euobserver.com/political/132520) as well as to animal rights and nuclear activists. Ironically, or perhaps not, the Dutch far-right used corrupt methods to fight corrupt Ukraine, and obtained a good deal of money under false pretenses.

The Dutch government itself never joined the campaign. In Amsterdam a month before the vote, I met Dutch officials who seemed openly afraid of the far-right media. They didn’t want to be denounced, or mocked in the tabloids, or shouted at by thugs in the street. The government’s majority is small, I was told. Sure there are lies being told, they said, but we don’t want to take the risk of correcting them.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2016-11-21, 20:51:53
Ah! The joys of a "wide" democracy… :)
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: jax on 2016-11-21, 21:00:39
Yes, referendums are closest to what you seem to believe is non-republican-democracy, and we might agree that that is a bad idea.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2016-11-22, 00:04:42
We might, indeed! The old term "plebiscite" comes to mind — but, there, its legitimacy is definitional. Devolution or Brexit do perhaps qualify… The Dutch referendum on a trade deal with another country seems an unlikely example. (Isn't it the job of the government to handle such things? Hm. Are the Dutch preparing the way for their own "exit" from the EU?)
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: jax on 2016-11-22, 13:26:14
This auto-referendum law is stupid, and allegedly the Dutch politicians are too cowardly to admit it, in fear of losing to right- and left-wing populists in the forthcoming election.

As is, it is merely a tool for mischief, which anyone with the resources can come and play with.

(https://scontent-arn2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/15179151_1734650156862632_3517142229583820227_n.jpg?oh=a45d96b87d5faacf2e949934bcd3ced3&oe=58B5A332)

Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: rjhowie on 2016-11-22, 22:17:13
Damn it they look vaguely familiar.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2016-11-23, 02:06:50
You probably diddled them, back in the day… :)
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: rjhowie on 2016-11-24, 00:56:31
One has already improved his country and personal rating and well maybe the other one may be a surprise??
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: ersi on 2017-04-27, 11:05:40
Yay, Estonia in the news.
Quote from: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-nato-russia-belarus-idUSKBN17T1DQ
Estonia says Russia may put troops in Belarus to challenge NATO

Defence Minister Margus Tsahkna said Estonia and other NATO governments had intelligence suggesting Moscow may leave Russian soldiers in Belarus once the so-called Zapad 2017 exercises are over, also pointing to public data of Russian railway traffic to Belarus.

Tsahkna cited plans to send 4,000 railway carriages to Belarus to transport Russian troops and gear there, possibly to set up a military outpost in its closest ally.

"For Russian troops going to Belarus, it is a one-way ticket," Tsahkna told Reuters in an interview in Malta.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: Belfrager on 2017-04-27, 22:50:39
Sorry my ignorance, are Estonia, Latvia and the other Baltic state I don't remember part of NATO?
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: krake on 2017-04-27, 23:41:27
How could you miss the Lithuanian Empire? Shame on you.
Of course, all of them are important members of the NATO. They are the spearhead of the alliance, so to speak.
BTW, you probably know which the most exposed part of a lance is.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: rjhowie on 2017-04-28, 14:27:05
There really is an awful lot of damn nonsense going on from the Baltic states and especially Estonia that they may be invaded??  utter nonsense but the West via this NAT lot are rubbing hands on glee at a chance to put pressure on Russia. On a lesser note must make the Kremlin shake it's head and smile at the nonsense. It is just another damn nonsense for NATO to over justify it's continued existence.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2017-05-03, 00:22:15
Mr. Trump, stop tweeting! (Oh? It was Howie? Never mind.) :) )
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: Belfrager on 2017-05-03, 22:25:09
How could you miss the Lithuanian Empire? Shame on you.
Of course, all of them are important members of the NATO. They are the spearhead of the alliance, so to speak.
BTW, you probably know which the most exposed part of a lance is.
My excuses for the brave Lithuans, I hope they understand my lack of memory, imperialist Estonians have occupied their space at this world representative forum... :)

As for you Krake, I'm tired of excuses from the Finnish so I have to accept also the Baltic states to pretend that they are the "victims". If not satisfied they can always return to Comrade Putin. Like the Finnish always did with the Soviets. Double game for the Finnish, always.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: Belfrager on 2017-05-03, 22:57:55
Returning to NATO.
I defend that European countries have no other option but to defend themselves together.

It will cost sovereignty and proudness, but an European Army will be the only way to protect us from Americans, Russians and Chinese. Those are our enemies, better to fight them whem they are still divided.

Europeans have all the best scientifical, military, economical and "need to do it" factors to assure a long lastull domination of the world. At this time, we need an Army for just ourselves.

After winning we can return to fight between us. Not before.
Simple as that.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: Belfrager on 2017-05-25, 22:43:19
Trump complains that 23 out 28 Nato members don't spend 2% of GDP for the supposed "mutual defense organization".
He adds that's not fair for the American tax payers.

It seems that one of those members that pays it's Estonia. Also Greece.
This is a world of lunatics. Meanwhile, American tax payers can thanks to Estonia and Greece.
And some other three I don't remember.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: rjhowie on 2017-05-26, 00:36:38
It is a lot worse for American taxpayers due to their morphed imperialistic nonsense. America spends what is it - just over half the total world expenditure on military?  How ridiculous is that?

And trump was against NATO now like other issues he is doing something different from his vocal rampages in the election campaign. Anyway, NATO was created to be a bulwark against the USSR and the eastern block in red controlled Europe. When the Soviet Union collapsed along with the red eastern Europe block that should have been the end of NATO.Instead it is just another tool by America to have everyone as a vassal State under it and so on. If all that stuff wasn't bad enough they built a big new NATO HQ at a billion dollars. Utterly head shaking and I have no time for the organisation whatsoever.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: krake on 2017-05-26, 07:02:01
Trump complains that 23 out 28 Nato members don't spend 2% of GDP for the supposed "mutual defense organization".
He adds that's not fair for the American tax payers.
As a consequence NATO should move its ass out of countries reluctant to spend 2% of their GDP.
It would make tax payers happy - both, Europeans and Americans. Simply as that.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: rjhowie on 2017-05-26, 08:12:28
It's of the past and when the Warsaw Pact went which was the opposition the damn thing should have been dumped.  :irked:
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: Frenzie on 2017-05-26, 09:25:23
What matters is the actual security and defense capabilities as outlined at http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_49202.htm Assuming that the US is paying more therefore getting more is stupid, cf. health care and infrastructure. Obama/Trump is therefore wrong by definition even if they might in some circumstances be right in the sense that a country may not be meeting a particular goal such as always having a brigade ready to go. Buy a few extra expensive airplanes (hello JSF) and up goes the budget without increasing actual capabilities in any meaningful way.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: jax on 2017-05-26, 14:25:45
By that measure the world should be a NATO member, spending 2.3% of the GDP on the military, down from 3.4% in 1988.

(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FPNLG1HL.png&hash=240bb1a9db3cea2f737d8647455fda52" rel="cached" data-hash="240bb1a9db3cea2f737d8647455fda52" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/PNLG1HL.png)

Source: SIPRI/World Bank Military expenditure (% of GDP) (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?end=2015&start=1988&view=chart&year_high_desc=true)

So, for that matter, should Ukraine (expenditure 4.0%).


To make an excerpt from the list, %GDP expenditures in 2015 (1988)

Saudi Arabia 13.5 (15.2)
Israel 5.4 (17.1)
Russia: 4.9
Ukraine: 4.0
USA: 3.3 (5.6)
Greece: 2.6 (3.6)
India: 2.4 (3.6)
Poland: 2.2
Turkey: 2.1 (2.9)
France: 2.1 (3.5)
Estonia: 2.0
China: 1.9
UK: 1.9 (3.8 )
Portugal: 1.9 (2.4)
Norway: 1.5 (2.8 )
Netherland: 1.2 (2.6)
Germany: 1.2 (2.5)
Canada: 1.0 (2.0)
Japan: 0.9 (0.9)
Hungary: 0.8
Luxembourg: 0.5 (0.9)
Iceland: 0.1

Back when the Soviet Union ruled the roost, getting 2% wasn't an issue. Though the peace dividend may have been followed by a Putin penalty (the numbers are from 2015, generally up in the NATO area since), it's not quite the same opponent.


The NATO target is that, a target. So is the 1.0% of GDP development aid target, which in 2015 was fulfilled by just three countries: Sweden 1.40%, UAE 1.09%, Norway 1.05%.


Rationally the two targets should be switched outside conflict zones (2% of GDP on development, 1% on defence), far more rational would be targets for results, not for expenditure.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: rjhowie on 2017-05-27, 01:54:34
It is the actual hard cost of military and as I have previously pointed out the US spends half the world's armament total. But they have to keep the military corporates industry up there. NATO should have been scrapped instead of the members just being toadies to the corporates mindset.

Now they conjure up all sorts of rubbish about Russia invading eastern Europe and such. What an insult to intelligence because it is a load of damn rubbish but the imperial military mindset is working.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: Belfrager on 2017-06-06, 22:50:39
The Atlantic it's an European sea, so the EUA should be expulsed from Nato. They can always create the Pato, Pacific Treaty Organization.
Pacific suits America well.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: rjhowie on 2017-06-07, 01:14:34
A European Sea?? The North Sea might be but not that one!
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: Belfrager on 2017-09-07, 23:10:39
Pacific suits America well.
Well well... they sunk navies, they face the Dear Lider and don't know what to do... China laughs about them... roses everywhere.

While American strategy is this complete stupidity I really don't know what to expect.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: rjhowie on 2017-09-22, 22:54:52
Well NATO is only a damn excuse for America to continue the modern imperialism of the place.

It was started as a defence against Communism in Europe and of course the old USSR. That side of things are all gone but instead of scrapping the damn waste of money all it does is find alternative excuses to exist. The Baltic states corner is typical of the nonsense and politicians insulting intelligence by bleating that Russia wants to invade them. NATO also spreads it's wings as part of the excuse I state. When the old situation completely changed in Europe  the excuse for NATO was no longer needed but those that gripe about old imperialism long vanished are supporting it in hard ways today with that organisation.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: ersi on 2020-09-06, 08:01:50
NATO is falling apart around Cyprus
Quote from: https://time.com/5884397/turkey-greece-tensions/
Since it began in mid-August, Turkey’s drilling program, and the gunboat diplomacy that has followed, has contributed to a situation so volatile German foreign minister Heiko Maas on Tuesday warned: “any small spark could lead to catastrophe.” It has prompted Turkey to announce new live-fire military drills to be held off Cyprus’s northern coast next week, with Greece planning rival navy exercises with France, Cyprus, and Italy. The dispute has divided E.U. leaders over how to manage Turkey and drawn in states as far-flung as Egypt and the UAE.
In my opinion, Turkey was always a wrong inclusion in NATO. Also, it is false to pretend that it has any hopes to enter the EU. If it enters, it will be a wrong inclusion.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: Belfrager on 2020-09-06, 08:39:21
In my opinion, Turkey was always a wrong inclusion in NATO
I disagree, in my opinion it is extremely important that NATO supports an Islamic country ( I don't know if they still have the secular regime Ata Turk has founded).
The mistake was Europe to rely so much in the USA for defense but it had no other option after WWII. It had plenty of time to change it and did nothing.

As for the EU, I think Turkey should have a privileged status of relationship, not a full right membership.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: ersi on 2020-09-06, 09:20:16
in my opinion it is extremely important that NATO supports an Islamic country ( I don't know if they still have the secular regime Ata Turk has founded).
Turkey is secular just fine. But also Islamic.[1] It may be a good idea to include an Islamic country, but it was not a good idea to include both Turkey and Greece at the same time. Other Islamic countries besides Turkey tend to be too far from "North Atlantic".

Due to the Armenian genocide and Cyprus and Kurdish conflicts, Turkey should have never been given any hope nor any significant privileges with regard to the EU. Just to be honest. But yes, politics and diplomacy are not honest, so I consistently fail at this art.
Just like Europe is secular and Christian: Church bells are ringing, but nobody goes to the church. In Turkey the imams are yelling, but barely anybody goes to the mosque.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: jax on 2020-09-06, 11:31:31
NATO is a defence alliance, not a social or cultural alliance.  It was an alliance against the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. In this century it has been more a counter to Russia.

Turkey's role in the Cold War was obvious, but the country is important these days as well. It is better to look to the Black Sea rather than the Mediterranean, though clearly both are important.

There are three major powers around the Black Sea, Russia, the EU and Turkey. And we got Ukraine and Georgia as well. There are natural geopolitical reasons why Turkey would be opposed to Russia, but they are not absolute. And with three powers we either got EU + Turkey vs Russia, EU + Russia vs Turkey, or Turkey + Russia vs EU, and the first alternative is more attractive than the last.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2020-09-06, 12:44:12
Succinct and well-put, jax! But  Erdoğan's "reign" is troubling, no?
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: ersi on 2020-09-06, 12:47:34
NATO is a defence alliance, not a social or cultural alliance.  It was an alliance against the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. In this century it has been more a counter to Russia.
In this century the USA tries to exploit NATO for various personal pet purposes, such as wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. These have nothing to do with Russia at all, and by being controversial to NATO members, they are weakening NATO and thus strengthening Russia. Thus they are counterproductive to the purpose of NATO. And the EU is doing nothing to bring the focus back where it belongs.

Turkey's role in the Cold War was obvious, but the country is important these days as well. It is better to look to the Black Sea rather than the Mediterranean, though clearly both are important.
Clearly the Mediterranean and Middle East are currently more important, because the USA has made it so, using NATO to serve USA's personal pet goals that have nothing to do with NATO's stated or natural goals.

Let's just recall the wave of Syrians and Iraqis that inundated the EU when the US failed in Iraq. Kurds were needed to reconquer Iraq from ISIS, but Turkey is anti-Kurdish. Some NATO members training Kurds and another NATO member killing them - what kind of alliance is this?

The inability of the EU - which is both a social and cultural alliance as well as economic alliance, and should be also a defence alliance - to formulate things properly even when it comes to its own direct interests is appalling. Already on simple social and cultural grounds Turkey cannot be included in the EU, much less on any other grounds.

There are three major powers around the Black Sea, Russia, the EU and Turkey. And we got Ukraine and Georgia as well.
In what sense have "we got" Ukraine and Georgia? In the same sense as "we got" Turkey and Russia? We haven't got them. They got us. EU has many times readily sacrificed its own Eastern members (such as Greece and the Baltic countries) to further ties with Turkey and Russia. What has become of this furthering of ties? Turkey and Russia still behave as per their character, but the interests of the Eastern member states remain damaged.

...we either got EU + Turkey vs Russia, EU + Russia vs Turkey, or Turkey + Russia vs EU, and the first alternative is more attractive than the last.
The last alternative is the least attractive, but actually in effect at the moment,[1] because of how utterly stupid the EU has been and how utterly uncaring the USA is of NATO.
Turkey, Russia in negotiations for potential Su-35 jet deal (https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/10/28/turkey-russia-in-advanced-talks-on-potential-su-35-jet-deal/) - the deal may not have materialised yet, but if NATO were an alliance worth the name, such negotiations could not have taken place at all.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: jax on 2020-09-06, 13:32:56
Ukraine and Georgia are countries things are being done to, with little scope for much doing on their own.  Turkey is not a natural ally.  EU kind of is, but when it comes to doing unpleasant things to their neighbours Russia is in the best position. Time is not on their side, though.

Turkey is in position to seriously upset this balance. That would be to their serious disadvantage though. Russia is more powerful, and being junior partner to Russia is not very sweet, and Russia can't give Turkey what they want.

Turkey is also a smaller fish in the bigger pond, the Mediterranean.  The 2+1 in the Middle East is Israel + Saudi Arabia vs Iran, with Turkey and Egypt as outside influences. And yes, OakdaleFTL, Erdoğan has not been very helpful. 

You might like this one. As usual I don't share his takes, but who can argue with pretty maps?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCpL9JATq9I
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: rjhowie on 2020-09-06, 21:23:56
NATO is a complete waste of time and dashed money. It was a front against the old Red days of the USSR and it's "colonies" and it cannot even get the money due from members. It is all routine USA control freakery and a total nonsense. once the USSR collapsed there was to be no further danger and I do not go along with some minds that waffle about as if that is still in existence in Moscow. It is an insult to intelligence for NATO to continue to conjure up nonsense. Russia is the largest country in the world but it is America that is more of a danger based on their long effort to go after places that do not go along with it.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: jax on 2020-09-07, 06:26:17

Turkey is secular just fine. But also Islamic. It may be a good idea to include an Islamic country, but it was not a good idea to include both Turkey and Greece at the same time. Other Islamic countries besides Turkey tend to be too far from "North Atlantic".

Due to the Armenian genocide and Cyprus and Kurdish conflicts, Turkey should have never been given any hope nor any significant privileges with regard to the EU. Just to be honest. But yes, politics and diplomacy are not honest, so I consistently fail at this art.

There is another Muslim majority NATO member: Albania, and they are pretty much secular all over, while Turkey has an urban secular west and a more rural religious east, where much of Erdogan's base lie.

Erdogan has made a lot of enemies, and lost a number of friends, but he is politically flexible. He is going to do whatever keeps him in power.

Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: ersi on 2020-09-07, 08:55:52
Erdogan has made a lot of enemies, and lost a number of friends, but he is politically flexible. He is going to do whatever keeps him in power.
And therefore all good for membership?
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: jax on 2020-09-07, 11:22:49
Assuming we could expel Turkey from NATO membership, why would we want to do that? What would you hope to achieve that couldn't be achieve better within the alliance?

While NATO is an alliance of democracies, there have historically been lapses, including Greek and Turkish juntas, that were at each others throats.

Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: rjhowie on 2020-09-07, 19:42:40
NATO was a pointless extension after the collapse of the Reds corner and a waste of time and propaganda to still have the dashed thing.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2020-09-08, 07:44:04
Even some prominent few here in NutJobLand™ mostly agree with you! And, yet, there's Putin...
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: jax on 2020-09-08, 08:03:58
NATO is not going away,  There one major question, and a few smaller ones. The major one is: Where will post-Trump USA go?

Troubles around the Baltic, Black, and Mediterranean seas are naturally going to be felt more closely by Europe than by North America. US interests will more likely go to East, South-East, and South Asia, and belatedly Africa. 

The Monroe Doctrine seems forgotten, at least for the moment, but it might return in some shape. (Side note: South American trade with EU is larger than with the US. Take that and smoke it, James!)

While the perspective and priorities differ, US and EU are much more aligned than you would expect two blocks to be. And in the fuzzy things, values, they are even closer, and they are converging, not diverging.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiIpymGeGoo

Brexit and NATO is another question. By the look of it the British are making an absolute mess of things, and will need someone to blame. That will pass. But without NATO, veering between EU and US would be trickier.  NATO is a good framework for heterogeneous members (Turkey after all is a member too). 

There will have to be some accord with Russia at some point. Not likely soon though. 

Turkey is tricky, even after Erdogan, with ups and downs (hopefully more of the former). 

If there were a US/EU divorce, NATO would still exist as a (likely French-dominated) European army. 


Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2020-09-08, 08:10:27
While the perspective and priorities differ, US and EU are much more aligned than you would expect two blocks to be. And in the fuzzy things, values, they are even closer, and they are converging, not diverging.
I expect you're right, jax
(BTW: Who is James?)
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: krake on 2020-09-08, 08:49:31
Declassified:
What is the sense of NATO?
Quote
It is to keep the Americans in, the Russians out, and the Germans down.
- Lord Hastings Lionel Ismay NATO’s first Secretary General
One might wonder how much or if at all those goals have changed over the time...
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: jax on 2020-09-08, 10:07:33
We are repeating ourselves a bit on this forum.

On the purpose of NATO (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Hastings_Ismay): "To keep the Americans in, the Russians out, and the Germans down."

These days it most of all looks like the Russians are in, the British are out and the Americans are down, but give it time. There is some life left in that old Atlantic ocean still.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: jax on 2020-09-08, 11:03:17
While the perspective and priorities differ, US and EU are much more aligned than you would expect two blocks to be. And in the fuzzy things, values, they are even closer, and they are converging, not diverging.
I expect you're right, jax
(BTW: Who is James?)

James Monroe, your number 5. Had to look him up, was not on first name basis. This was meant as an oblique reference to what happened after Monroe (from "stay away from the New World", towards "them Americas they are ours"). The US role in the Americas will go through changes too.

Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: Belfrager on 2020-09-08, 15:13:36
If there were a US/EU divorce, NATO would still exist as a (likely French-dominated) European army.
With that divorce there will be no American funding anymore and what's NATO without American funding? Not much more than Legion Étrangère.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: jax on 2020-09-08, 18:31:04
The funding of NATO is pocket change. 1/4 billion € civilian, 1 1/3 billion € military. Enough to keep the lights on in the Brussels headquarter certainly. But by comparison the Norwegian defence spending is about 6 gigaeuro. In other words Norway's budget alone, and Norway is hardly any major military power, is 3-4 times the NATO budget.

But sure, the US military spending vastly outnumber the EU, but only parts of that is in the North Atlantic theatre, like Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Somalia (and possibly soon Mali).
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: rjhowie on 2020-09-08, 22:14:02
Rather poor assumption that view is. It is still money getting dished out for something that is pointless. It was created to be a stand against the old Red corner which is long gone and the millions re NATO is a load of nonsense much could be spent on something more positive. That they do not all pay their shade makes it kind of obvious the thing is ridiculous and it's members are not either in danger.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2020-09-08, 22:19:36
James Monroe, your number 5.
Went back and re-read your post (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=2398.msg84604#msg84604)... Sorry, for not paying attention: What you said was perfectly clear!

"... the US military spending vastly outnumber the EU, but only parts of that is in the North Atlantic theatre, like Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Somalia (and possibly soon Mali)," you wrote. Again I'll add my 2 cents: Let us hope the U.S. will wisely stop at providing some funding of missions in central Africa!
That likely depends on Trump's reelection.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: jax on 2020-09-09, 06:58:22
No, it does not. Not even a little bit.

For one thing you are there already (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41724827), have been for a while, and the operations have been scaled up under Trump. Besides I am taking the long term view, not what will happen under President Biden if Trump loses, or under President Ocasio-Cortez if Trump wins. The reason you are in the Sahel is the war on terror. That war will not end under Trump. nor under Biden, maybe not even under Ocasio-Cortez. But end it will, probably like the war on drugs.

The questions then are two. Will the US return to Africa? You might one day, but probably not soon, and not the traditional way. You will have to prioritise, and mediating in Asia will have priority and focus. Second, will NATO? Again, it might be better framed as "Will we leave?" However, I see no change, nor will to change. NATO countries are loath to do the heavy lifting, except literally as logistics support. NATO countries "advise" and "support", and the primary client is the AU, and regional groupings like ECOWAS. Generally speaking there is no need to involve the central NATO headquarter in Brussels, but of course that is a question of how much advice is necessary to give.

Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: rjhowie on 2020-09-09, 23:30:19
NATO is a hangover from the past and is a damnable pointless expense.  :irked:
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: jax on 2020-09-10, 04:56:57
I am sure you would want to replace it with the Support Mother Empire Russia Treaty Organisation if you could. Such a waste, such a missed opportunity.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: rjhowie on 2020-09-10, 22:50:22
What a load of immature control freakery propaganda rubbish. The old Red equivalent of NATO went decades ago so in the West we are brained by US control freaking. Think sensibly.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2020-09-11, 03:57:11
Uh, sir: the Warsaw Pact may be defunct and the Soviet Union devolved to a smaller federation (and some healthy independent states free of the Soviet), but Putin is still Putin and his Russia will again be a world-power, if he lives long enough! Even if the U.S. deserts NATO, a core of European nations  would continue it. Begrudgingly, perhaps; but competently.
After all, Russia looms... And memory is long, for some,
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: Belfrager on 2020-09-11, 09:22:11
Even if the U.S. deserts NATO, a core of European nations  would continue it. Begrudgingly, perhaps; but competently.
European best defense - the enemy thinks we are competent.
Let's hope God keeps it that way.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: rjhowie on 2020-09-11, 17:52:31
Ill passingly say this Oakdale and that is that Russia is still the largest country in the world and has a  commercial growth potential.

Prior to the 1st World War the US President stated that if Russia kept going the way it was with such an increase in productivity and growth within about twenty or so years be the most advanced commercially on Earth. Didn't matter when Russia imperial or under the Red thugs or today after Communism collapsed each of those three we in the West had a negative so sill being head-banging ridiculous.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2020-09-11, 21:35:59
a  commercial growth potential.
Only if Biden wins...
we in the West had a negative so sill being head-banging ridiculous
Speak for your own wee nation. The U.S. is still doing fine, and if Trump wins again I expect we'll do better still!
Heck, we could even afford to stay in NATO... Speaking of which (I know: Off Topic!), Your lot down south and the French still make airplanes? I'd hate to see NATO forces stuck with the over-priced and finicky F-35s.

Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: Frenzie on 2020-09-12, 09:25:33
Speaking of which (I know: Off Topic!), Your lot down south and the French still make airplanes?
Plenty of fighter jets being made in Europe. The Eurofighter Typhoon is probably the main one, although that one has been argued to be quite a lot of compromises in being multifunctional. Belgium's opted for F-35As though, mainly due to a supposedly lower price.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2020-09-12, 10:34:16
At US $78 to $101 million per? (I've obviously not kept up with the market for such!) :)
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: Frenzie on 2020-09-12, 14:41:52
The Typhoon has a similar price. When you're buying 50-100 of the things a million more or less means a free plane. :P
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: rjhowie on 2020-09-12, 21:52:20
Would say your country did well under Trump for some time on job providing but there are dear Oakdale and military a big thing as spend so much on that. However how is it the tens of millions bad off and on food stamps don't get reduced?
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2020-09-13, 05:20:13
how is it the tens of millions bad off and on food stamps don't get reduced?
War has always been a state's dearest expense, RJ! Even in feudal times, the the Seven Years' cost everyone sums that couldn't be called tidy. (You might know it better -as might I-as the French and Indian War...) Were it not for the earlier introduction of the Peruvian tuber called "potato" the Prussian peasantry might have perished from the earth.
Imagine all the flute concerti we'd have lost!

(You do that your "knowledge" of America's poor is -well- poor! :) I dare say that as a proportion of the nation's population the U.S.A.'s is smaller the Scotland's... Would you check for me, Howie?)
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: jax on 2020-09-13, 16:43:30
The aerospace industry is pretty large in Europe as it is in the US. Same issues too. Concentration on ever-fewer companies, and the question whether fighter airplanes are becoming the aircraft carriers of future wars (extremely expensive, of limited utility, potentially vulnerable, but great at projecting force).
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: rjhowie on 2020-09-14, 00:57:27
You are skipping things Oakdale!

Does not matter a hoot which of the big two commercial parties in power tens of millions of poor and so on - doesn't change a dashed bit but massive amounts on military and considering half the world military expense is the USA tut, tut.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2020-09-14, 08:13:21
You are skipping things Oakdale!
I am not! I know this dance (https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=skip+to+my+lou+lyrics&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8)*, and so should you! Pretending that the world consists of only social workers and nurses (...I can't he'p m'sef' guys: The gals we'd all court would probably not accept our woo!) I'm not claiming they -those I'll mention shortly- are beneath me. I'm just saying that it takes a certain kind of man to make and keep a comfortable acquaintance with hookers, whores, gold-diggers and ball-busters. To maintain a relationship with one takes a special kind of man... And who among us is that certain? That special?
International relations are similar, no? :)
Howie, you don't seem to woo...
Although you confess a discerning appreciation of the fairer sex, your noted exploits are gentlemanly but distant... (Bobby, girls like to get close! See if I'm wrong.)
But if you won't: Is it lack of enthusiasm? Your vigor or valor vitiated? Google tells me some common synonyms of vitiate are corrupt, debase, debauch, deprave, and pervert. While all these words mean "to cause deterioration or lowering in quality or character," vitiate implies a destruction of purity, validity, or effectiveness by allowing entrance of a fault or defect.
What I suspect is that you tried "Woo! Woo!" and they thought you were a train aficionado! So, you took up a hobby!

(Is it even possible to carry my original metaphor through to the conclusion I made? :) Unlikely, I think! But also, it's quite unlikely than anyone other than the likes of me would even consider it...  :jester:  :troll:  :alien:  :devil:  )

* It's a square dance! More than four corners is likely to lead to a general commotion... In context, a conflagration.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: rjhowie on 2020-09-14, 23:33:13
I have given four women in my life the great value (as it of course!). Heavens even had one I was going with and she had a female  friend wished it was her with me  :D  :blush:
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: ersi on 2020-09-15, 15:19:16
Why are you guys not permaliking the above post? :)
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: rjhowie on 2020-09-15, 23:25:37
Maybe when you get to leaving school things will be better for you!
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: ersi on 2021-12-19, 21:06:21
Russia demands NATO roll back from East Europe and stay out of Ukraine
Quote
https://www.reuters.com/world/russia-unveils-security-guarantees-says-western-response-not-encouraging-2021-12-17/
Moscow handed over its proposals to the United States this week as tensions rose over the Russian troop build-up near Ukraine.

It says it is responding to what it sees as threats to its own security from Ukraine's increasingly close relations with NATO and aspirations to become an alliance member, even though there is no imminent prospect of Kyiv being allowed to join.

The Russian proposals were set out in two documents - a draft agreement with NATO countries and a draft treaty with the United States, both published by the foreign ministry.

The first, among other points, would require Russia and NATO not to deploy additional troops and weapons outside the countries where they were in May 1997 - before the accession to NATO of any of the former communist states in East Europe that for decades were dominated by Moscow. It would mean NATO abandoning any military activities in Ukraine, Eastern Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia.

[...]

Some Western political analysts suggested Russia was knowingly presenting unrealistic demands which it knew would not be met to provide a diplomatic distraction while maintaining military pressure on Ukraine.

"Something is very wrong with this picture, the pol(itical) side appears to be a smokescreen," Michael Kofman, a Russia specialist at Virginia-based research organization CNA, wrote on Twitter.

Sam Greene, professor of Russian politics at King's College London, said President Vladimir Putin was "drawing a line around the post-Soviet space and planting a 'keep out' sign".

"It's not meant to be a treaty: it's a declaration," he said. "But that doesn’t necessarily mean this is a prelude to war. It’s a justification for keeping Moscow’s hair-trigger stance, in order to keep Washington and others off balance."
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: ersi on 2022-01-22, 05:54:24
Re the previous post: Germany obeys.

Germany Blocks NATO Ally From Transferring Weapons to Ukraine
Quote from: https://www.wsj.com/articles/germany-blocks-nato-ally-from-transferring-weapons-to-ukraine-11642790772
Germany is blocking North Atlantic Treaty Organization ally Estonia from giving military support to Ukraine by refusing to issue permits for German-origin weapons to be exported to Kyiv as it braces for a potential Russian invasion.

Unlike the U.S., Britain, Poland and other allies, the German government has declined to export lethal weapons directly to Ukraine.

In the case of Estonia, a small country on Russia’s northern border, Berlin is also refusing to allow a third country to send artillery to Ukraine because the weaponry originated in Germany, according to Estonian and German officials.
In Estonia it was clear all along that Germany is Putin's ally more than anyone else's. NATO does not work as an alliance. The EU is broken by design. Those who are consistently in the wrong dictate the terms and call the shots.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: jax on 2022-01-22, 09:17:54
That is how the weapons control system works, when it works. If the rules say that weapons cannot be delivered to a country, they cannot be delivered through a third country either, in this case Estonia.

Swedish weapons (with similar weapons controls) on the other hand are on the way to Ukraine via UK. Germany also disallows airspace for military flights, which doesn't matter as Denmark and Sweden allow them. In short Germany has a hard neutrality that doesn't really matter, while Denmark and Sweden have the neutrality of looking the other way.

Germany has gone further in economic pressure than I expected, which will matter more than German arms. That Germany doesn't want to be visibly engaged in a confrontation with Russia doesn't really weaken Ukrainian position.

The proxy war between Turkey (Azerbaijan) and Armenia (Russia) in 2020 was a decisive victory to Turkey. Russian tanks are not invulnerable. The Russian air force pretty much is though, if at a high political cost.

Why Germany refuses weapons deliveries to Ukraine (https://www.dw.com/en/why-germany-refuses-weapons-deliveries-to-ukraine/a-60483231) 

France is more important, and tends to be Russia friendly. Not so much now.

Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: ersi on 2022-01-22, 09:31:30
That is how the weapons control system works, when it works.
You mean a country's weapons control system wrt weapons the country itself produces? The thing is, Germany is a NATO country. So, either NATO works or it doesn't.

From another angle, there's also what was imposed on Germany after WWII, so one might question how or why Germany has any say in military matters. Germany should not even have weapons to the extent that a (German) weapons control system could become a thing.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: Frenzie on 2022-01-22, 10:43:19
From another angle, there's also what was imposed on Germany after WWII, so one might question how or why Germany has any say in military matters.
This is what always struck me as the utmost idiocy about Obama and Trump's nonsensical claims. Germany isn't spending 2% of its GDP on its military? Gee, who'd have thought, that's exactly how we wanted it![1] Suggesting that Germany should spend more than France in absolute numbers is just ignorant madness, at the very least until we have European army. I have no idea what they're smoking over in Washington.
Where "we" means the US at least as much as the rest of Western Europe.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: ersi on 2022-01-22, 11:50:57
This is what always struck me as the utmost idiocy about Obama and Trump's nonsensical claims. Germany isn't spending 2% of its GDP on its military? Gee, who'd have thought, that's exactly how we wanted it!
I thought the same thing. Obama and Trump made it sound as if the military spending of NATO members go straight to the budget of USA, and failure to keep up with the expenses means lack of loyalty to USA. It is not inconceivable that it works something like this in practice. However, it is especially dangerous to accuse Germany of too little military spending. Did they forget the two world wars?
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: jax on 2022-01-22, 12:50:19
Germany is a NATO country. So, either NATO works or it doesn't.

Germany is a NATO country, but Ukraine is not (not for lack of trying). Russia made that point quite clear with the invasion of Georgia in 2008. NATO is not in the position to defend Georgia, so a Georgian membership is not an option. The only way Ukraine would be joining NATO would be in the aftermath of a Russian invasion.

This is what always struck me as the utmost idiocy about Obama and Trump's nonsensical claims. Germany isn't spending 2% of its GDP on its military? Gee, who'd have thought, that's exactly how we wanted it! Suggesting that Germany should spend more than France in absolute numbers is just ignorant madness, at the very least until we have European army.

Germany will still hold a low profile, though this is gradually changing, decade by decade. The 2%/GDP goal for 2024 is some sense (if you are a member of a mutual defence organisation you should be able to provide some of that defence) and more nonsense (a higher defence budget doesn't necessarily mean an increased ability to provide that support).
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: ersi on 2022-01-22, 15:29:46
The only way Ukraine would be joining NATO would be in the aftermath of a Russian invasion.
This is the aftermath. Russia already invaded Ukraine nearly a decade ago. There are no signs of NATO learning from any of the Russian invasions.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: jax on 2022-01-23, 07:15:05
Fair point. I was thinking of Putin biting over more than he could chew. The blowback could quite possibly lead to Ukrainian NATO membership further ahead.

The former United Socialist Soviet Republic is littered with Moscow-friendly separatist entities, Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and more recently the Free and Happy State of Donbas. (Nagorno-Karabakh predates the Russian Federation, but has been useful.) Basically you're with Putin or in trouble.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2022-03-21, 16:05:33
I'm somewhat surprised at how little discussion of the Russian invasion of Ukraine is going on, here, where I'd expect better understanding (and information!) than one gets from American sources...
But shall we begin with Taras Kuzio's interview (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2awysdmPhQ) at the Telegraph's Off Script program — ahem! programme!
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: Frenzie on 2022-03-21, 16:26:04
You might say we missed the ball.

Here's some effective propaganda from Ukraine:
(https://images.nrc.nl/ALGodQ6gmsE3mqDnm1Oj_019qjY=/1920x/filters:no_upscale():format(webp)/s3/static.nrc.nl/images/gn4/stripped/data82778874-206d5d.jpg)

And here's a song celebrating Ukrainian Turkish drones:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=890z0skXQzI

Quote from: https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraines-world-class-drug-molecule-industry-imperiled-by-russia-invasion-11647784800
Russian attacks are endangering Ukraine’s world-leading medicinal chemistry industry, which supplies scientists across the globe with molecular building blocks needed for early drug development.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: ersi on 2022-03-21, 16:27:46
The discussion has been had elsewhere. Here we had downtime.

I can proudly say that I predicted the war correctly. I was less sure about the unity of the response from EU/Nato. Germans backed down from Nord Stream 2, that was unexpected. Many important EU highups have taken Putin's corrupt money, probably most notable of them Gerhard Schröder.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: Frenzie on 2022-03-21, 16:29:20
This article speaks about how last minute, two Belgian nuclear power plants aren't going to close in 2025, but will remain open until 2035 for energy independence from Russia.

Back only a month ago it was thought to be a mere formality to take the final decision in March.
https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2022/03/18/belgie-houdt-twee-kerncentrales-toch-langer-open-a4102943

The next day, the German Greens voiced their sadness about the decision.
https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2022/03/19/duitsland-betreurt-levensduurverlenging-doel-4-en-tihange-3/
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2022-03-21, 17:52:18
Just how subtle is that flag image? Can you interpret it's intent for me? :) Of course, it's obvious! And -you're right,
Frenzie
- quite effective...

But is it indicative of the prevailing mood, in Ukraine? In Europe?

Over here (in the States) there's a mania of support for Ukraine, and very little fear about how direct or indirect our involvement should be — before actual military conflict with Russian troops. NATO is seen as precluded from entering the conflict; no one seriously thinks a No-Fly zone is a viable option...
Has Poland explained its not supplying the promised Soviet-era MiGs?
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: ersi on 2022-03-21, 18:12:55
About as subtle as this (during pro-Russia/anti-Maidan referendum campaign in Crimea)

(https://www.enca.com/sites/default/files/styles/facebook/public/000_Par7818270.jpg)

Russia was first to blame Naziism on Ukraine. By a long shot.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2022-03-21, 23:42:31
 Not strong believers in Godwin's Law, are they? (I mean Putin, et al....) The Ukrainians are certainly more justified, what with that whole "being invaded" thing.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: ersi on 2022-03-22, 06:04:49
Has Poland explained its not supplying the promised Soviet-era MiGs?
Haven't you heard that Pentagon promptly blocked the delivery because the MiGs would have been transported via a US air base in Germany? https://news.yahoo.com/pentagon-rejects-poland-surprise-offer-055445370.html
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2022-03-22, 08:54:48
I can understand why NATO can't impose a No-Fly zone... But the Pentagon's meddling is more than inappropriate: It's out-right political!
From the article you linked to:
Quote
The Pentagon said that while the decision to transfer Polish-owned planes is ultimately of the Polish government, it added that it “is simply not clear” that “there is a substantive rationale for it”.

“We will continue to consult with Poland and our other NATO allies about this issue and the difficult logistical challenges it presents, but we do not believe Poland’s proposal is a tenable one,” the statement said.
I'd thought the Pentagon was the seat of our military command?!

Those planes would serve to scatter and/or destroy both the convoys of armor and the batteries of artillery menacing Ukrainian cities. They'd also be useful against naval bombardment.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: ersi on 2022-03-22, 09:27:10
I'd thought the Pentagon was the seat of our military command?!
"Us" in this case is NATO, a military alliance of many countries. So no, Pentagon is not the top military command, even though USA is admittedly the most important member and sets example of conduct.

Don't make your usual mistake of treating this as a matter of American internal policy. It absolutely is not. The most urgent interest of handling the threat of Russia correctly lies in all the NATO countries located between Russia and Germany.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2022-03-23, 01:04:47
Don't make your usual mistake of treating this as a matter of American internal policy.
I'd meant the opposite, ersi: That the Pentagon is only the seat of the U.S. military, not of NATO... And that -indeed- other NATO members are more involved — by their proximity to the conflict and by their history; their views should be considered more weighty, more sagacious.

I fear our (the U.S's) inept political leaders will make matters worse, in the short and long run.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: ersi on 2022-03-23, 05:06:06
I fear our (the U.S's) inept political leaders will make matters worse, in the short and long run.
Obviously, given his party affiliation, you deem Biden inept.

Can you give an account of the effect Trump had on Nato and relations with Russia?
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2022-03-23, 09:59:29
ersi, ersi! Will you ever outgrow your fixation on the characterization of my political leanings> :) Probably not... But I'll ask the obvious question: What, during his long career, has Joe Biden ever been right about?

You'd like an "account of the effect Trump had on NATO and relations with Russia," eh? Okay.
NATO commitments (% of GDP for military in member-states) were more closely kept; not entirely incidentally giving them a more serious stake[1]... (And, hopefully, more credibility!)
Russia didn't invade any of its neighbors during his presidency.

You'll admit that Trump and Putin are different kinds of unpredictable? Whether you will or not, each is more effective on the international stage because of their unpredictability. The problem with Putin is that where he's predictable he's delusional: The Russian Empire (ala the former Soviet Union) is not a salvageable project...
Likewise -I think- Trump recognized that America should not be the world's cop... (For which belief many still call him an Isolationist! A pejorative term, among the neo-conservative gaggle...) It is more often argued, "If not U.S., then who" — rather than consider a more humble position.

Gee, who was it that said (...nevermind the question; too easy to find it:) Thomas Jefferson Quote: “We are the friends of liberty everywhere, but the guarrantors of only our own.”
I should say appreciation of their stake...
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: ersi on 2022-03-23, 12:01:31
But I'll ask the obvious question: What, during his long career, has Joe Biden ever been right about?
I was just testing if your partisan obsession is still incorrigible. Yes, it is.

You'd like an "account of the effect Trump had on NATO and relations with Russia," eh? Okay.
NATO commitments (% of GDP for military in member-states) were more closely kept; not entirely incidentally giving them a more serious stake[1]... (And, hopefully, more credibility!)
Unfortunately, Trump singled out Germany in his 2% rant. Do you understand how important it is for Europe in general to keep Germany relatively under-militarised? Trump clearly does not understand it at all.

Moreover, his 2% rant was not with the purpose of bringing about more serious credibility to NATO. Rather, his point was that Nato is not a real alliance, everybody is just riding on US military spending, Nato serves no good purpose, nobody is taking it seriously and it should be dissolved. Evidently you did not get the point.

Russia didn't invade any of its neighbors during his presidency.
Well, there was the Karabakh war 2020, but yeah, it's a stretch to say this was directly instigated by Russia.

On this point, Trump simply got lucky. You see, Putin has evolved a pattern of starting his major attacks during Olympic Games, but Olympic Games got postponed due to covid times, which coincided with Trump's term. Also, Putin's previous thrust was recent.

- South Ossetia war started during Beijing Summer Olympics in August 2008.
- Annexation of Crimea (and cutting off Donbass) during Sochi Winter Olympics in February 2014.
- Wholesale invasion in Ukraine, February 2022 - Beijing Winter Olympics.

Likewise -I think- Trump recognized that America should not be the world's cop...
Actually, Trump almost started WWIII by missiling Qasem Soleimani. And above you argued that Trump strengthened Nato, which would definitely be in line with policing the world.

In reality though, Trump was more in favour of abolishing Nato. Abolishing Nato would cause American military engagements to become completely uncoordinated and chaotic - not reducing the police role at all, but making USA more like a rogue bully. Which it is anyway.

The tendency of policing the world by disregarding Nato allies was already there under W, who invoked Article 5 for 9/11 attacks, which was inappropriate and did much to damage the alliance. Trump's attitude with his 2% rant and assassinating Soleimani was equally damaging to Nato.

(For which belief many still call him an Isolationist! A pejorative term, among the neo-conservative gaggle...) It is more often argued, "If not U.S., then who" — rather than consider a more humble position.
USA does not have a humble position. USA has an incorrigible messianic position. Even if entrenched isolationists came to power and dissolved all friendships, pacts and alliances, they'd keep "protecting American interests" with warships, missiles, and troops on the ground half a globe away, anywhere in the world. There's absolutely no way they could stop.
I should say appreciation of their stake...
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2022-03-23, 13:25:38
USA does not have a humble position.
I'd agree...with much of what you've said here. Not that your views regarding America aren't skewed by an irrational dislike -should I say hatred? :)- of my country... Be that as it may, indeed Trump, like a few paleo-conservatives, probably would have preferred NATO be dissolved after the Warsaw Pact was; or at least that the U.S. withdraw from it.
BTW: Good to see you've kept your superstitious logic intact:
And you seem to apply it consistently: You still fear The Hun! (Do Norway and Sweden keep you up nights?)

The so-called War on Terror is a 'hole nuther kettle of fish, and I'll agree Article 5 should not have been invoked. But I'd take issue with your "Trump almost started WWIII by missiling Qasem Soleimani."  (I presume Iran is not beholding to The Hague...) Not that I don't think Iran's theocracy wouldn't nuke us or Israel (or anyone else, for that matter) if they could; but they are nutters, as the Brits say. Who -besides them- could have or would have engaged in this potential WW III?
And the "missiling" was not -to my knowledge- a NATO operation...

Perhaps when Europe grows up, they can take care of their own problems, eh? :) (Sorry about that one, folks: I'm tired and cranky, for reasons outside of things discussed here.)
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2022-03-23, 14:06:31
(Perhaps this (https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1253&context=gjicl) will make some amends? It's an interesting read...)
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: Frenzie on 2022-03-23, 15:05:06
At first glance I was looking forward to perusing a document from the late '40s or perhaps the '50s, but no, that ancient appearance is somehow from 2002.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2022-03-23, 16:14:00
I trust you meant that as a compliment to University of (our) Georgia's Law School! :)
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: jax on 2022-03-25, 05:16:07
The discussion has been had elsewhere. Here we had downtime.
I blame Putin for the downtime just as the Ukraine invasion prepararations began. He is the domain squatter too. 

Not in his own name of course, but using his long chain of proxies. Have anyone followed the career of his Dresden baker? That might be our man.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2022-03-25, 07:56:58
Hilarious, jax! And -as crazy as this world sometimes gets- a possibility... :)
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: jax on 2022-03-26, 06:30:02
Germany is a NATO country, but Ukraine is not (not for lack of trying). Russia made that point quite clear with the invasion of Georgia in 2008. NATO is not in the position to defend Georgia, so a Georgian membership is not an option. The only way Ukraine would be joining NATO would be in the aftermath of a Russian invasion.
This is the aftermath. Russia already invaded Ukraine nearly a decade ago. There are no signs of NATO learning from any of the Russian invasions.
Fair point. I was thinking of Putin biting over more than he could chew. The blowback could quite possibly lead to Ukrainian NATO membership further ahead.

The former United Socialist Soviet Republic is littered with Moscow-friendly separatist entities, Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and more recently the Free and Happy State of Donbas. (Nagorno-Karabakh predates the Russian Federation, but has been useful.) Basically you're with Putin or in trouble.

And now you are in trouble if you are with Putin, which is exactly how it should be.

Will Ukraine join NATO? I guess in the end the answer will be no, but that there will be consolation prizes that will be more useful to Ukraine for security and economy. Unless the Kremlin keeps escalating, in which case Ukraine might end up in the bona fide NATO too.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: ersi on 2022-03-26, 08:17:53
Will Ukraine join NATO? I guess in the end the answer will be no, but that there will be consolation prizes that will be more useful to Ukraine for security and economy. Unless the Kremlin keeps escalating, in which case Ukraine might end up in the bona fide NATO too.
I guess in the end the answer is more likely yes, Ukraine (and Georgia) will join Nato, but the end is more down the road. I'm not in favour of accepting new members to Nato or the EU on discounted terms.

Greece joined the eurozone on discounted terms and it did not go particularly well, did it?

Turkey was accepted to Nato on discounted terms and they have not been a more grateful or cooperative member because of it. Quite the opposite. It would be even worse if Turkey were ever to be admitted to the EU.

For security vis-a-vis Russia, as long as Russia is the way it is (and that would be rather long, because Western realisation of the way Russia is is very late), Ukraine should be in Nato, but not until Ukraine has a clear orientation. Until now, Ukraine's orientation has been changing sides with every next election. Only bad things can happen when such a country were to join Nato. But once Ukraine has fixed its orientation towards West - and the current events just might do it - Ukraine can reasonably join Nato.

Ukraine's eventual membership in Nato would be best for the security of all countries between Germany and Russia. Of course, then there is the "broader picture", namely USA probably does not like a peaceful, prosperous and united Europe. Pentagon's refusal to greenlight Poland's delivery of MiGs was one such sign.

On the one hand, it would be very bad to rush Ukraine into Nato. On the other, it would also be bad to let the conflict lock up the way Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria etc.[1] have. Both bad for a very long time.

A good outcome would be an unconditional surrender of Russia, the kind that transformed Germany and Japan after WWII, some Nuremberg trials on Putin and his cronies. But the West is likely not up for it, because as I said, the realisation how evil Putin is is very recent in the West, and not properly mature. It has still not hit home properly and there are other interests at play, such as the US interest that Europe must remain easy to pick apart whenever needed.

So I am not very confident in a good outcome, one that would ensure a calm state of affairs at Estonia-China border.
...Donbass, Crimea, and I may be overlooking some places and events...
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: jax on 2022-03-26, 13:22:27
It would be NATO by any other name, Western European Union (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_European_Union) as an example. And this assumes some kind of negotiated settlement, and in any case this would be a Ukraine protected in a way Russia could no longer be a military or hybrid threat. Russia would remain a threat to Europe that we would have to manage somehow. 

Ukraine would not be fit to be a member of either NATO or Europe, but would be fit to be on a path to membership (with the above security guarantees). The guarantees could be extended to Ukraine and Moldova, but not to Georgia unless Turkey is on board, or at least Russia loses control over the Black Sea. Otherwise this would be a security guarantee that can't be held, which turned out badly for Georgia in 2008 and might turn out badly in the future. 


(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FOxLLezXwAkXEEq?format=png)

Sweden and Finland on the other hand will be NATO members a year from now. As much based on game theory as on security and politics. Classic prisoner's dilemma. 

Sweden and Finland have now prepared to be able to join on very short notice. If one of Sweden or Finland joins NATO and the other one doesn't, the one that does will be far more at risk than the one that doesn't in the transition period, while the other country will be worse off than it were ever after. With Putin slinging threats nuclear as non-nuclear several times a day, now would be a sensitive time to join. So:


So the right time to join would be after Russia calms down, but before Russia recovers. Which in the case of Sweden likely coincides with the autumn election, but as mentioned the election will matter less and the timing and security situation will matter more. 

Hungary also has an election in a week. If Orban/Fidesz loses it, Putin will have lost an important ally, one of the last remaining.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2022-03-27, 05:10:18
Victor Davis Hanson is not a personal friend of mine, but I've been listening to him — on "local" radio for a few decades and on national TV for almost a decade now. He taught history (classicist) at Fresno State University and joined Stanford's Hoover Institute some years back. He's always struck me as an astute observer of the world.
Here's Part 1 of a 2-part interview he did recently:
Epoch Times video (https://www.theepochtimes.com/victor-davis-hanson-on-russia-ukraine-cutting-through-the-information-war-part-1_4363734.html?utm_source=ref_share&utm_campaign=copy&rs=SHRGPQBK&)

(Part 2 of this interview will premiere on Tues. March 29, at 7:30 p.m. ET.)
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: ersi on 2022-03-27, 07:10:56
Hungary also has an election in a week. If Orban/Fidesz loses it, Putin will have lost an important ally, one of the last remaining.
I wonder if there's a good reason painting Orban as any more important Putin ally than those leaders of far more important countries who outright worshipped Putin, such as German Reichskanzlers and French presidents, consistently visiting Russia on May 9th, and then after annexation of Crimea, on May 10th instead. Merkel did not end up as bad as Schröder, but - yup, Schröder, there's an important Putin ally. And Francois Fillon, Paavo Lipponen, Wolfgang Schüssel - many ex-leaders and highups of EU countries who accepted Putin's money.

Orban is not even close to that. Orban is really nobody's ally, particularly not in terms of foreign politics. And domestically, if all that's said about him is true, how can he possibly lose?
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2022-03-27, 10:55:19
@ersi: Ah! You've hit upon the most important reason I limit the topics/threads to post in: I'm a typically parochial American, and usually don't feel I know enough to comment intelligently, let alone contribute productively... :)

Perhaps this (https://capx.co/can-the-eu-defend-ukraine/) from CapX? :)
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: ersi on 2022-03-28, 05:32:53
Perhaps this (https://capx.co/can-the-eu-defend-ukraine/) from CapX? :)
Good little story pointing out the obvious problems with EU defence - the defence article is in the charters while nobody is doing anything about it - but meagre in terms of opening up why this is so.

In practical terms, EU defence is Nato, a whole other organisation. This is why all countries between Russia and Germany joined *both* Nato and EU - and Nato *first*.

For Western Europe or Western EU (i.e. Germany and westwards), Nato is a whole separate organisation to be ignored if it does not fit the policies of Western Europe specifically, such as, according to the CapX article, "That leaders can flatly reject Ukraine’s calls for NATO intervention but cheer on the country’s accession to the EU suggests they don’t set much store by the bloc’s mutual defence obligations." [1]

From the perspective of the entire EU, i.e. including eastern member states, it would be a geopolitical suicide to make Ukraine a member with an undefended border vis-a-vis Russia - meaning, if Ukraine is to join, it must join both Nato and EU *and* Russia must stay out. However, Western EU leaders still apparently entertain some hopes for Russia, even after the annexation of Crimea, even after a wholesale invasion to Ukraine, even after all the sanctions they imposed - probably only to restrict the wider availability of Putin's dirty money and to channel it in a more targeted way.

Let's recall not too distant history yet again. Eastern EU member states joined specifically to be out and away from Russia. At the same time, German and French leaders envisioned visa freedom with Russia/Putin, i.e. open borders in the east. This is a fundamentally irreconcilable difference, and apparently it is not going to be reconciled even though the eastern perception about Putin was correct all along and western perception has been dangerously false. And, yeah, I can see how westerners would never admit a mistake and never correct themselves. Their arrogance is through the roof, always.
However, I don't think Western EU leaders are exactly cheering on Ukraine's accession to the EU at the moment. But moving forward, it is good to keep in mind that they harbour secret warm feelings for Russia (namely Putin's oil, gas and money) no matter what, literally no matter what, and Ukraine's accession will therefore necessarily be combined with certain concessions to Russia, even though the correct thing to do is to reset Russia and the time is right for it right now.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2022-03-28, 06:10:11
German and French leaders envisioned visa freedom with Russia/Putin, i.e. open borders in the east. This is a fundamentally irreconcilable difference
This is a big deal? Visa freedom? And I'd thought my country's politicians were petty...and unserious! :)
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: ersi on 2022-03-28, 06:45:17
The European concept of visa freedom used to entail:
- no specific country-entry documents (country-entry document obtained at the embassy of the foreign country you want to visit = visa)
- consequent to the above, no related administrative or bureaucratic procedures
- consequent to the above, no related fees

What is required at the border is to carry your ID card - issued by your own country - which normally would NOT be checked at the border. Import/export of commercial goods and cargo would depend on the customs agreement with the visa-free country. Within Schengen countries, basically all good to go.

Reasonable prerequisites for visa freedom are good relations between the countries, no border disputes, no spy dramas, no green men (unmarked foreign soldiers posing as internal separatists), cyberattacks etc. All these are problems between Eastern EU member countries and Russia, but near-nonexistent between Western EU countries and Russia, so Western EU always preferred to glide over and ignore the existence of these problems, believing that Russia would change once honeyed enough with more and more (and more and more and more and more and more) concessions, because this way sweet Russian pals stimulate the economy by buying real estate and yachts and send their kids to schools in the West etc etc etc etc etc.

Nota bene:
Earlier this century, USA under W managed to change the concept of visa freedom to something that cancelled all the benefits of visa freedom that I listed. Vis-a-vis USA, visa freedom is actually a full-blown fee-laden bureaucratic procedure resulting in a document that grants entry to the country - reasonably called a visa, but USA calls it a "visa-waiver program".[1]

Americans made some whiny noise when, in return to this blatant nonsense by W, EU eventually slapped USA back with the same nonsensical concept of visa freedom. Now Americans have to go through all the visa motions too to obtain a visa that says they have visa freedom with EU. Ordinary Americans complained that come on, this is not visa freedom. But remember, EU citizens had reason to complain about the same thing first. USA imposed this nonsense first - and won. Now visa freedom means just another kind of visa because USA made it so.

Not sure if this means any change to the concept of visa freedom between e.g. EU and Russia. We'll see as soon as it comes up again. Edit: Likely henceforth the new concept applies, because it has already been applied between EU and (the friendly ex-colonial parts of) Africa.

So, in answer to your question: Visa freedom a la USA means nothing. Visa freedom a la USA is the same thing as no visa freedom. However, the kind of visa freedom with Russia that Western EU tried to impose on Eastern EU member states at the time was practically a demand to get slaughtered.
Edit 2: And naturally, everybody's passport - i.e. the international travel document, not ID card - gets inspected at the border for the presence and validity of the "visa-waiver program" thingie. It amounts to 100% visa, no freedom.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: ersi on 2022-03-29, 06:15:03
Ukrainian negotiators (and Abramovich) suffered a poisoning attack during the negotiations, WSJ says (https://www.wsj.com/articles/roman-abramovich-and-ukrainian-peace-negotiators-suffer-symptoms-of-suspected-poisoning-11648480493). 

Several issues. The least first: Why is Abramovich highlighted here? The original heading in the print edition was 'Suspected Poisoning Sickened Abramovich.' Just Abramovich in this heading, not Ukrainian negotiators.

More seriously, negotiations overall are a bad idea in this war. Negotiations generally attempt to achieve a ceasefire. They usually pause the situation at the current front. In this case, the current front absolutely should not be there. The reasonable starting point for negotiations would be for Russia to get lost from all of Ukraine, including Donbass, and better still from Crimea and Transnistria too. As long as this is not the starting point, negotiations do not serve any sensible purpose. As long as this is not the starting point, Putin only gets further encouraged, just as he has all along.

Putin is exactly like Hitler, only slower. At the beginning of WWII, Western Europeans thought nothing of the annexation of Austria. Quite the opposite, after Anschluss they encouraged and enabled the annexation of Sudetenland, thinking this would calm things down. But this led to the annexation of entire Czechoslovakia instead. And to the actual world war.

The same way as WWII really started with the annexation of Austria, the invasion of Ukraine really started with the annexation of Crimea and conflict in Donbass. What is there to negotiate over this? Minsk agreements led to nothing. Earlier sanctions localised to Crimea led to nothing. Instead, they have brought about the current expanded invasion.

There is something systemically deliberate here. Namely, nobody in the West really cares about Ukraine, about whole countries and peoples. They care more about Abramovich, the oligarch with good style and taste - good style and taste matter above everything and anything else, apparently. When oligarchs - particularly those with style and taste - buy football clubs, yachts, jets and real estate in London, in the Alpine and Mediterranean resorts, when their kids tweet, instagram and tictoc their lavish lifestyle from the big European and US cities, "everybody" benefits. It's good surface "content", while gas and oil money keeps flowing in the bottom 90% of the iceberg.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: jax on 2022-03-29, 07:23:57
I wonder if there's a good reason painting Orban as any more important Putin ally than those leaders of far more important countries who outright worshipped Putin, such as German Reichskanzlers and French presidents, consistently visiting Russia on May 9th, and then after annexation of Crimea, on May 10th instead. Merkel did not end up as bad as Schröder, but - yup, Schröder, there's an important Putin ally. And Francois Fillon, Paavo Lipponen, Wolfgang Schüssel - many ex-leaders and highups of EU countries who accepted Putin's money.

Orban is not even close to that. Orban is really nobody's ally, particularly not in terms of foreign politics. And domestically, if all that's said about him is true, how can he possibly lose?

He more likely than not won't. But the EU doesn't have a foreign or security policy at the moment, it is for most purposes outside the EU remit. So any one country can in effect veto, be it Estonia, Malta or Hungary. In other words Putin only needs one ally, the most likely are Hungary, Greece and Cyprus. Italy and Germany have large trade with Russia, a double-edged weapon. I suspect France has considered Ukraine to be an inconvenience, and Russia an opportunity, but also a distraction.

Putin having crossed the Rubicon changed that equation (no 2014 didn't quite qualify, but set other wheels in motion).  Schröder is a bit of a persona non grata, the others jumped ship in time.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: ersi on 2022-03-29, 10:02:15
Putin having crossed the Rubicon changed that equation (no 2014 didn't quite qualify, but set other wheels in motion).
Didn't qualify for/as what, exactly? And why?

You see, since for Western Europeans Crimea 2014 somehow didn't qualify, it's likely not settled that Putin crossed Rubicon either.

Moreover, the analogy points to something rather sinister. After Caesar crossed Rubicon, he established the Caesarean rule, Rome became an empire and the republican order ceased to exist. So, are Western Europeans foreseeing world domination for Putin and accept it as a tolerable future? Indeed, why not, Abramovich has style, Putin shares with everybody important enough to call the shots....[1]

Thanks for making it clear that Ukraine was betrayed and abandoned in 2014. What's going on now is pretending that it wasn't a (complete) betrayal. A similar scenario was clearly in store for the Baltic countries, but the scenario started to play out in Ukraine first.

Anyway, if Ukraine is not allowed to stand, then the EU will implode. All countries between Germany and Russia will understand that they are really on their own and the alleged alliance does not exist, neither Nato or EU. And then we'd both have to admit that Orban was actually ahead of events, instead of lost.
You say they jumped ship in time? I'd say they are more like taking a bit of reduced-pay leave.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2022-03-29, 10:44:44
it's likely not settled that Putin crossed Rubicon either
I think you've misunderstood the meaning of the expression, ersi: Cæsar told his troops that, if they took the action he proposed, there were only two possible outcomes: Victory or death.
That's why Putin's annexation of Crimea wasn't "crossing the Rubicon" — and his invasion of Ukraine may well be...
And that's the rub!
An adequate reason to give Europe and NATO (and of course the U.S.) pause.
Before they commit to declared war with the Russian Federation...
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: Frenzie on 2022-03-29, 11:09:01
Though we might remember the situation in Yugoslavia, where doing nothing quickly became untenable. If memory serves, Russia was even invited to tag along.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2022-03-29, 11:29:21
I take your point, Frenzie. Who shall be invited to "tag along" this time?

Soviet military doctrine always called for nuclear weapons to supplement conventional forces... And I (reasonably) doubt Putin's position is a different one. How much control does the Russian President have? More telling: How much control does Putin have?

And to think how many in the U.S. (and elsewhere) feared Trump, for similar misgivings. :)
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: jax on 2022-03-29, 13:42:20
Thanks for making it clear that Ukraine was betrayed and abandoned in 2014. What's going on now is pretending that it wasn't a (complete) betrayal. A similar scenario was clearly in store for the Baltic countries, but the scenario started to play out in Ukraine first.

For Ukraine to be "betrayed" there would have to be promises made that were not kept. There aren't. Ukraine was not and is not a member of NATO. Nor is it a member of the EU. Getting Ukraine out of Moscow's grasp has not been straightforward. Ukraine has prepared for war now for 8 years, and far more successfully at that than Russia. Primary assistance has come from the US, but also other NATO partners. Since the Armenia-Azerbaijian war, the Turkish Bayraktars have played a starring role.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2022-03-29, 14:02:56
Wasn't the agreement that had Ukraine relinquish "its" nuclear arsenal supposed to guarantee its status as a sovereign state, the sanctity of its borders? (Of course, if the only other parties to that agreement were the Russian Federation and its former satellites...)

Not to say that Ukraine could have or should have tried to keep and maintain the nukes left within its borders! That just wouldn't have been practical...at the time! :)
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: jax on 2022-03-29, 14:17:02
Yep, the Budapest Memorandum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances) in 1994.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: ersi on 2022-03-29, 14:34:04
For Ukraine to be "betrayed" there would have to be promises made that were not kept. There aren't. Ukraine was not and is not a member of NATO. Nor is it a member of the EU.
As I keep pointing out: The Baltic countries were almost betrayed while *in* both Nato and EU. Damn lucky for Nato and EU, Ukraine is the test case now, instead of the Baltic countries.

By their very existence, Nato and EU hold promises. E.g. there is the defence article in the EU treaties. Everybody knows it does nothing. Yet it's there. So, no promise, you say? Well, Nato fills that gaping hole. It is a gaping hole and better be filled! Nato/EU better be what they crack themselves up to be.

There have been a long series of promises, starting with the Budapest memorandum and ending with Minsk agreements. Call it no promise if you wish.

Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2022-03-29, 14:59:00
Ukraine has prepared for war now for 8 years, and far more successfully at that than Russia.
Following the annexation of Crimea... Do you fault Ukraine for preparing for the inevitable? And, perhaps, Putin's pursuit of designs on Ukrainian territories are more the result of his accurate assessment of his nation's conventional military's shortcomings — making his timing sort of a forced move?

What a God-awful mess! (I wonder how good a chess player Putin is...)

The U.S.S.R. was never particularly good at abiding by treaties... (Remember Reagan's "Trust, but verify"?) And the U.S. foreign policy has been unmoored since Congress absolved itself of its responsibility to declare war, or not. Certainly since the War Powers Act, administrations have repeatedly foregone the requirement to submit consequential treaties to Congress for ratification...
Indeed, Ukraine was "betrayed" — but is nuclear conflagration the only way to restore our honor?

Or can Putin somehow be placated?

Quote
“The Defense Ministry of the Russian Federation, for purposes of trust-building and creating conditions for holding talks further, and achieving the final goal of agreeing and signing a peace treaty, made a decision to radically decrease the military activities in the directions of Kyiv and Chernihiv,” Alexander Fomin, Russia’s deputy minister of defense, told reporters in Turkey after the two sides met.

Chernigov, in northern Ukraine, sits about 150 kilometers (93 miles) from Kyiv.

Russian officials will provide more details about the reduction after the delegation returns to Moscow, Fomin said.
(source (https://www.theepochtimes.com/russia-to-cut-down-on-military-activity-near-ukraines-capital-officials_4369149.html))
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: ersi on 2022-03-29, 20:10:35
There have been a long series of promises, starting with the Budapest memorandum and ending with Minsk agreements. Call it no promise if you wish.
Actually I should say - a long series of promises up to the latest sanctions. But the more appropriate word is commitment. Are sanctions non-committal? Do they not send a signal? Are Ukrainians not allowed to interpret actions like this?

The association agreement was set in motion during Yanukovich's term. The association agreement in itself is a signal, but even more so under Yanukovich, indicating that the EU expects Ukraine to follow the path of integration even under a pro-Russian president.

The association agreement was conditioned on releasing Tymoshenko from prison. Was this not a display of commitment to a principle? In return, Ukrainians have expectations to the EU too - namely to stay committed to the path of integration that the EU itself pushed for.

Now, I saw it then as a terribly discounted membership offer, like in case of Turkey, which is bad enough, but it was much worse. Somebody knowing Yanukovich and Putin would have been able to foresee that meddling in Ukrainian internal affairs (which is what the association agreement is, certainly when coupled with demands to release particular political prisoners - don't even try to deny this) in an unopportune moment could end up in two bad ways:
- Ukraine would continue to follow its orientation, which was pro-Russian at the time, and the EU would look like an idiot for assuming that a pro-Kremlin kleptocrat could somehow embody West European values
- Ukraine would change orientation by means of political scandals at best, a bloody coup at worst, and there would remain a sizeable opposition to the new pro-Western orientation, ripe for Kremlin to abuse and blame the EU for meddling in Ukraine's internal affairs

The latter happened in the worst way, with annexation of Crimea and separation of Donbass. Was there any possible good outcome foreseeable? No, there was not. This is how the EU betrayed Ukraine - by being a total moron in a simple enough situation that diplomats study in beginner courses. The EU must correct its mistake or be damned.

To say "There were no promises" and to start loosening the sanctions would be the last betrayal, signalling end of life for the EU.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: jax on 2022-03-30, 05:08:18
As I keep pointing out: The Baltic countries were almost betrayed while *in* both Nato and EU. Damn lucky for Nato and EU, Ukraine is the test case now, instead of the Baltic countries.

It's a long game. It would be a stretch to call it an extension of the Great Game (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Game), but there are reverberations. Ukraine belongs in Europe, if they want to (they do). So does Turkey (they don't). Russia is too big and ornery, but could be on friendly terms (they aren't).

That is a problem that goes beyond Putin. EU is a club that Russia can't be a member of and cannot influence. NATO is not only that, but a protective alliance against Russia and anyone else that could be a threat to their interests (that includes Turkey, Middle East, North Africa, Sahel, China, worst case India or the US). Moscow will never like the EU or NATO, no matter who is in Kremlin, because the more powerful either will be the less powerful Moscow will be. We can sweeten the deal with trade and common projects, and if the world goes that way a common threat in China (or worst case India), or any other headache major or minor. We all have spent years in Afghanistan for instance (that Great Game again). We are all concerned about islamists. But in the end, and certainly under Putin, Moscow wants us dead. If the US goes insane again and elects another Trump, so does the US.

In Ukraine the goal was to avoid bloodshed. For the talk about rebuilding Ukraine, war sets you back decades. The countries in former Yugoslavia have only partially recovered from a war thirty years ago. If we go back ten years: before Maidan, before the first and second invasion, before the coup attempt in Turkey, when Erdoğan was still trying to join the EU, the Arab Spring was about to happen (and thus Syria and Libya hadn't yet), Osama bin Laden was killed, and Xi wasn't yet in power (and there was an epic power struggle, most dramatic was the Wang Lijun incident (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wang_Lijun_incident)). Anyway, for Putin these were good times, of a sort. The EU – Ukraine Association Agreement was on the way, there were still things to do, but Ukraine was just as corrupt as Russia was. And a big chunk of the country felt closer to Moscow than to Brussels. That dramatically changed in 2014. Russia got control over Crimea, but at the cost of Ukraine. Under a different lider than Putin this could have gone differently, but it didn't, and the slow process of wrestling Ukraine from his grasp started.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FGJz8GaXEAMqCVT?format=png)

Putin's countermoves are divisions and dissent, trying to split the EU apart, trying to split the US apart, the US from the EU, and Turkey in particular might be a target, Erdoğan spots opportunities. So do Iran. But by Twitter measure the Russian disinformation is less directed towards US and Europe, more towards India, Pakistan, South Africa and Nigeria. Of course Twitter is a narrow channel too easy to monitor, but while the actual war is limited to a few fronts in Ukraine, the information war is global.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: ersi on 2022-03-30, 05:55:40
The all-wonderful "broader picture" argument tends to come up when there is really no argument. For now, I'll submit this: When you don't know what you are doing, then broader picture and long-term whatever do not help you. Whenever somebody makes pro-Turkey and anti-islamist statements in the same breath, they do not know at all what they are doing. If islamists are a concern, then simply do not consider Turkey for the EU membership. Do not bait and tease them. It's not any more difficult than this.

In Ukraine the goal was to avoid bloodshed.
When exactly was that the goal? Pre-2014 there had been no bloodshed, certainly no bigger than what followed after the incompetent bait and tease with the association agreement. So, either the EU had some other more important goals besides avoiding bloodshed or they tried sincerely to avoid bloodshed but it turned out the opposite way, i.e. an undeniable blunder. No broader picture can excuse this.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: jax on 2022-03-30, 11:49:55
Russia has over 5k nuclear warheads, several of them in working order. If nothing else that constrains the available options, and how to achieve the goals. As do the other substantial warfare resources of Russia.

Turkey, like Russia, and like every country on the planet, have a range of relationship options, from reasonably friendly to outright hostile. But every choice constrains the subsequent choices. And we have to build on the actual actions, not scenarios and modelling. This is not Minority Report.  So 2014 cut off all overtures of rapprochement with Russia, since then the operating principle has been to constrain Russia. The sanctions, the 2% of GDP by 2024 resolution, the NATO Enhanced Forward Presence "tripwire" in 2016.

This was also when existing Russian low-level disinformation become weaponised. Pre-Crimea Russia would not have interfered in Western politics. IRA was founded in 2014. Russia also tried (unsuccessfully) to sanction-proof their economy and weapons industry, and cozied up to China and to less extent rest of Asia. 


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkwfs3BOceM

It still wasn't a Rubicon moment. It would have been possible to deescalate. Ukraine had learned their lesson, but the rest of us could have gone through trust-building exercises, reset buttons and the rest. But there is no stepping back from this invasion. A regime change would lead to many bygones be bygones, but not under Putin. 


(https://c.tenor.com/PHpBtGiq7VoAAAAd/monty-python-bicker.gif)


Quote
We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual

— Lord Palmerston (and Henry Kissinger)
Half the world's economy (in PPP) and 5/6 the world's population are not in OECD countries. OECD countries are mostly open and democratic (Turkey is a member), other countries are not in the majority of cases (some are getting there, others are going in opposite direction). This multipolar world is messy, and there will be many alliances seemly and unseemly. Hardly anything new though, going back to e.g. the Cold War it was far worse. 
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: ersi on 2022-03-30, 14:18:57
Friedrich Merz (CDU) says (https://www.zeit.de/2022/14/russland-ueberfall-ukraine-deutsche-fehlentscheidungen-regierungen) that Merkel (CDU) was wrong about:
- Nord Stream, saying that it was purely a private sector venture
- phasing out nuclear power, proportionally increasing dependence on Russian gas
- halting Ukraine's admission to Nato, failing in a clear policy after annexation of Crimea

Merz: "Wir müssen eingestehen, dass wir uns geirrt haben."

Well, of course. And now too little too late.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: jax on 2022-03-30, 15:51:42
1. Well, yes. We don't need any more fossil gas pipelines anywhere. Burning gas is an expensive and filthy habit that we should stop. That said it didn't really matter, apart from the gross waste of money. EU could have gotten, and did get, the gas from the existing tubes. Now, as a temporary tide-me-over we will get fossil gas in the form of LNG, which is even more wasteful than in tubes, but there we go. But the good news is that it is Russian wasted money.

2. That too, yes. It matters a little more, but still just a moderate amount of energy. Nuclear power is not cost-effective, and has been losing money through the 2010s. However, extending the life span of nuclear power plants is relatively cheap, and energy is not going to be as cheap in the 2020s as in the 2010s and the 2030s. That is a problem with new reactors, in a number of European countries. They will most likely not be profitable. On the other hand, if looked through the perspective of energy security, it might make sense to have a share of nuclear power.  Unsurprisingly these power plants will be government paid.

3. Now this one is tricky. Germany and France would have been against an eastwards expansion of NATO on principle and instinct. But even if they were against it doesn't mean that it is a good idea. The most likely outcome of such an application would be that the invasion would have happened earlier, and time has been on Ukraine's side. The longer it took, the less likely a Russian invasion would succeed.  It would also be easier for the Russians to claim that this invasion was in defence of Mother Russia. I would like to see Ukraine in NATO, but on the other side I don't believe in making promises you cannot keep. That would make the countries less secure, not more (thus I am not keen on Georgia in NATO, unless the Article 5 irrevocably and believably would apply to them).

"Stealth NATO" is fine, like the training and equipment of Ukrainian soldiers. The Turkish media star may have triggered Putin, but on the whole it has helped. As has the Swedish/British Robot 57 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_generation_Light_Anti-tank_Weapon), and the less famous domestic arms industry.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXVu_DeB4wo
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2022-03-31, 02:02:46
An aside about a circumstance that perhaps hasn't been sufficiently considered:
https://youtu.be/pet2rwOYiPQ/embed/pet2rwOYiPQ
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: ersi on 2022-03-31, 06:50:08
A small perspective into the state of RT and propaganda journalism.

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOn4eOH_BS4[/video]
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2022-04-01, 06:22:55
Thanks for the tip, ersi. A useful first-hand account... (I especially liked, though, the host's moronic liberal throwaway line "Fox News hates black people". Idiots gotta idiot, occasionally, else they lose their liberal creds! But such bias was merely a momentary distraction. The MSM is also addicted to such; I take it for what it is, and mostly just leave it there.)
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: Frenzie on 2022-04-01, 09:08:42
Liberals: idioting
Fox News opinion shows: "black woman dumb" https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1499191856948662272, blah blah anti-white bias, critical race theory, …
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2022-04-01, 10:15:25
Come, now, Frenzie: Surely you know the difference between news programs and punditry? But perhaps your misunderstanding is understandable! :) CNN, MSNBC, et al. don't distinguish between such on their programs...
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: ersi on 2022-04-01, 11:36:34
Come, now, Frenzie: Surely you know the difference between news programs and punditry? But perhaps your misunderstanding is understandable! :) CNN, MSNBC, et al. don't distinguish between such on their programs...
Does the et al include Fox News?

Let's get the facts straight. (Continental) Europeans know the difference between punditry and news programs 100%, given the way our tv and radio present their programmes.

Americans - 100% of them[1] - do NOT know the difference, even when they quip that there is a difference. Some American professional journalists know the difference, conceptually, but journalism as a whole, as a business area or industry in USA, does not recognise the difference nor even attempt to make it.

Here https://www.foxnews.com/shows
This page says "Fox News Shows". Tell me which one of these is a news show, not punditry. Find one.
That is, this is not a partisan matter. When you do not know the difference between news and opinion, you are in no way special among Americans, not necessarily liberal or conservative, simply an ordinary average American. It's a national tragedy.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: Frenzie on 2022-04-01, 11:57:32
Surely you know the difference between news programs and punditry?
Perhaps the fact that I explicitly wrote "Fox News opinion shows" might provide a hint that I didn't mean the news desk. But what exactly is your point?
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2022-04-01, 20:27:57
That the host of the podcast ersi posted the link to — does not make that distinction, like many of his compatriots. :)
Would you agree that that's disingenuous?
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: Frenzie on 2022-04-01, 20:56:37
I suppose that depends on your view of what Fox News is. There are at least three of them. There's the website, which is basically a (mediocre) newspaper. There's the TV news, which is fairly crap but not really more so than TV news as a general category (although e.g. DW is definitely better). And as @ersi said, there's that with which Fox News wants to be associated first and foremost: https://www.foxnews.com/shows

So in short, not really, except in the sense that most of them probably don't really give a darn as long as it brings in viewers.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: ersi on 2022-04-01, 21:10:20
That the host of the podcast ersi posted the link to — does not make that distinction, like many of his compatriots. :)
YOU, OakdaleFTL, are failing to distinguish between news and opinion. Look what you said about the podcaster at first:

( [...] Idiots gotta idiot, occasionally, else they lose their liberal creds! But such bias was merely a momentary distraction. The MSM is also addicted to such; I take it for what it is, and mostly just leave it there.)
You accuse him of bias! The accusation would make sense, if he were somehow obligated to avoid bias. But he is not. And his alleged idiocy would be something to worry about, if it were his duty to be free from idiocy. But he has no such duty. He is just a half-naked youtuber. By my standards, not a pundit, much less a journalist. Newsflash: You did not see news there!

A journalist is under obligation to minimise bias when reporting, i.e. conveying actual events, and minimise commentary. A pundit provides commentary and analysis, where biases necessarily creep in, which is why it's called opinion and not reporting.

But this guy is just a "professional youtuber" as they come these days. A "professional youtuber" can do anything on the platform, comment on world events if he wants, political or not, have a virtual party with pals, upload random nonsense, use youtube just to advertise companies/products/views that pay, simply beg for money in every video etc. No obligation to avoid bias.

You fail to distinguish between a lot more than just news and opinion. You have been unfortunately raised by American mainstream media, who themselves cannot distinguish between news/reporting and commentary/opinion, and that's why you yourself do not know the difference.

I'm sure you have seen Jon Stewart (Comedy Central) interviewed by Chris Wallace (Fox News) and Stephen Colbert (Comedy Central) by Bill O'Reilly (Fox News). In those interviews, the Comedy Central guys were accused of liberal bias! The "news" hosts (pundits really) cannot distinguish between non-journalism (such as political comedy) and journalism! According to themselves in their own show, Chris Wallace and Bill O'Reilly were "reporting", which is absolutely NOT what they do. They *comment* and give *opinion*. But yeah, they are Americans, so let's just forgive them.

And you too, you absolutely fail to distinguish between news and opinion. It's okay, it's part of being American, but I will definitely keep pointing out how deeply mistaken you are.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2022-04-01, 21:32:15
Thanks for the tip on DW! (Television news is almost a misnomer... :) ) I'll certainly give it a try..
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2022-04-01, 22:20:47
Newsflash: You did not see news there!
I beg to differ: First person experience -which the YouTuber's guest provided- is a necessary element of parsing the news.

(Although your two examples, of Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert being interviewed by the likes of Wallace and O'Reilly, wouldn't have interested me: While I have known people who take Stewart and Colbert seriously (e.g., believe their jokes are made using real news), these acquaintances of mine are mostly young and quite uninterested in much... :) The most blatant example of such was prompted by an SNL skit, where Tina Fey had Republican VP nominee Sarah Palin saying she "could see Russia from her back porch!" Ha-ha! A great many Democrats of my acquaintance believed the nominee said it! Go figure.)

My point was not an accusation of bias, per se, but an observation of a phenomenon quite pronounced and firmly entrenched in the culture of today's Democratic Party. Of course, many people call themselves independant; even some members of Congress! (Note: Do any Independants caucus with the Republicans? :) ) But the presumed view among right-thinking idiots is liberal, as defined by the Party. No matter how illiberal the view is.

Had you any comment on Dave Bowman's podcast?
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: ersi on 2022-04-01, 22:51:34
Newsflash: You did not see news there!
I beg to differ: First person experience -which the YouTuber's guest provided- is a necessary element of parsing the news.
It does not make the interview a newspiece. It is not news. It is not reporting. It is two dudes chatting, one on camera, another on audio only. The interviewer is not a journalist. Begging won't help you.

([...] an SNL skit, where Tina Fey had Republican VP nominee Sarah Palin saying she "could see Russia from her back porch!" Ha-ha! A great many Democrats of my acquaintance believed the nominee said it! Go figure.)
Sarah Palin actually said it. She confirmed it and elaborated on it in an interview with Katie Couric. Everybody knows this, so certainly you know it too.

My point was not an accusation of bias, per se, but an observation of a phenomenon quite pronounced and firmly entrenched in the culture of today's Democratic Party.
And even this is wrong. It is an all-national tragedy. You are a prime example of it.

I'm sure that lots of Democrats and fans of Democrats take Jon Stewart as their source of what they assume to be news, opinion, and analytical worldview, but the exact same thing is going on on the Republican side - all the way up to Fox News pundits who are unable to distinguish punditry from reporting and non-journalism such as political comedy (where the very point is to play on and fool around with biases) from journalism. As you very well know, since you know so much, Reagan is to blame (https://www.truthorfiction.com/the-fairness-doctrine-and-ronald-reagan/) on this one.

Had you any comment on Dave Bowman's podcast?
I have a different question to you: Who is Tulsi Gabbard? (I know who Tulsi Gabbard is. But I am interested in your opinion along right/left/centrist lines, views and opinions on policies etc. I want to know how she is perceived in America.)
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2022-04-02, 00:03:39
Sarah Palin actually said it.
Except — she didn't. Tina Fey did. Was Couric's source -prompting the question- "common knowledge"? (I.e., people saw Tina Fey say it! And they repeated what they'd seen...? :) )

(I'll search for the interview, now that you've got me interested...)[1]

Does "news" have to come with an imprimatur?
Interesting! The SNL "interview" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HsyEvr5Pnw) and the CBS Exclusive (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HsyEvr5Pnw) are both on YouTube! Notice anything odd?
But no worries: The actual video (https://youtu.be/-ZVh_u5RyiU?t=557) is available...even though YouTube (Google) puts the same URL in my address bar!
See 9:18 - 10:37 of the real one; 2:50 - 3:45 of the fake...
Which did you watch?)
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: ersi on 2022-04-02, 05:47:24
Sarah Palin actually said it.
Except — she didn't. Tina Fey did. Was Couric's source -prompting the question- "common knowledge"? (I.e., people saw Tina Fey say it! And they repeated what they'd seen...? :) )
Had it been some sort of non-existent delusion, Sarah Palin could have corrected it when asked about it. But what did Sarah Palin do when asked about it? She confirmed it and elaborated on it. She has been adamant about it more than once https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGSJCDw3ZBw (You do recognise the actual Sarah Palin, don't you? It's not some actress or deepfake or whatever.)

So, the source is Sarah Palin and anything contrary to it is a worthless partisan talking point.

You do it a lot, like Trump. Trump thinks that he can alter reality by just saying whatever bs.

The actual video (https://youtu.be/-ZVh_u5RyiU?t=557) is available...
Yes, it is available, always was. And you should be able to distinguish it from fakes. Since you found the actual interview, you have no more excuses.

Does "news" have to come with an imprimatur?
Journalism is a specific profession and a specific business area with specific requirements, some of which, namely the difference between reporting and opinion or punditry, I laid out for you just above. Yes, journalism has journalistic characteristics.

You quipped to Frenzie that there is a difference between news and opinion, but really you are demonstrating that you know nothing about it.[1] Hang around here for some more years and you may eventually come to understand how to recognise actual journalism from half-naked youtubers and comedy skits. Maybe we will have sufficient patience with you.
I know from IRC and other interactions that it is a general problem with Americans. Pretending to know all about mainstream media while knowing nothing about it is a general American thing. You are just being American - this is the way I understand you.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2022-04-02, 23:38:24
Quite the remarkable (and typical) screed (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=2398.msg86822#msg86822)... :)

It's difficult to distinguish which came first, the anti-Americanism or the pretentious know-it-all-ism! But it's not quite a chicken-and-egg situation. Since you couch your barbs in the guise of observations, I'll reply in kind:
The Europeans have always looked down their noses at America. Their history makes them all-but incapable of escaping the silly class structures that color their world view, and they readily revert to denigrating their fellow Europeans when America loses their limited attention! :)
But no matter. Never mind.

Why is there no thread about the current U.S. administration? (Not that I'm surprised...)

I was just reminded (by a former general officer appearing on a Fox News program[1]) that the Biden administration's first reaction to the Russian invasion of Ukraine was to offer Zelenskiy "a ride" out of town... President  Zelenskiy replied "I don't need a ride... I need weapons!"
Makes me wonder who's "side" the Biden administration is on...

Did that "news" ever get featured by European journalists?
The Lawrence Jones show called "Cross Country".
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: Frenzie on 2022-04-03, 06:10:11
Did that "news" ever get featured by European journalists?
Yes.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: ersi on 2022-04-03, 07:47:38
In my case, anti-Americanism is not an ideology. It is a factual assessment of how things are. There was a definite point when I turned anti-American. Before that point, I was thinking whether USA was generally good or generally evil and I was collecting information to arrive at a conclusion. Then I heard about Reagan's Star Wars (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative) and decided that this makes USA definitely evil.

Similarly, "Americans dumb" is not meant as an insult against you or Americans. Rather, it is a factual assessment of how things are. In every exchange between us it stands proven that, yes, Americans are dumb. Occasionally things get emotional because I feel genuinely insulted how dumb Americans are. But more often I take it as a wonderful opportunity to teach. I'm an old school type of teacher, with dunce hats, spanking and naughty corners in my arsenal.

Everything would be easier if we got facts straight as a basis of discussion. But with Americans it's worse: They do not know what *fact* is, as distinguished from opinion, such as in the latest example of distinguishing between news reporting and punditry. This particular point is very familiar to me, as I have been through this with a good number of Americans online.

Not knowing what fact an Sich is seriously hampers any meaningful exchange of ideas. Add to this the persistent failure of getting factual events straight[1] and it amounts to a total disrespect towards the very idea of meaningful exchange of ideas.

Americans do not exchange ideas, never meaningfully anyway. Rather, they "convince". Americans think the world works by them *making reality* by talking others into accepting the American point of view. This is extremely insulting, absolutely disrespectful against everybody non-American in the world. So, my constructive counter is: stop being so dumb, shape up, learn to exchange ideas meaningfully. It may be a torture to get you there, but trust me, it will be worth it. I've always been the more trustworthy among the two of us.

You may be curious about USSR too. About USSR I have known since birth that it is evil. It did not require any figuring whatsoever.
Such as that Sarah Palin indeed said that you can see Russia from Alaska. And Trump lost re-election and then incited his mob base to an insurrection against Congress on Jan 6, 2021. These things happened. But in USA it depends on your political party whether these things happened or not.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2022-04-03, 10:50:50
Occasionally things get emotional because I feel genuinely insulted how dumb Americans are. But more often I take it as a wonderful opportunity to teach. I'm an old school type of teacher, with dunce hats, spanking and naughty corners in my arsenal. [underlining added]
(Okay, okay... Okay — I think I've stopped laughing now! :) )
Feeling embarrassed for another's gaffes is presumptuous. Feeling insulted by another's presumed shortcomings is the epitome of hubris!
I guess I've found another example of the old adage: Those who can, do. Those that can't, teach. :)

Kantian metaphysics aside, determining fact from fiction, fact from opinion, is a real-world skill, my friend. And the ways one can go wrong making such determinations are myriad.
The appeal to authority is the most common. (When that authority is public opinion it is still unreliable...) The more sources one can use, the better — of  course. But group think is a hazard; and -you'd agree?- most of what "everybody knows" is woefully unsupported by argument and agreed-upon premises (if not actually demonstrably wrong!) to guarantee discord.

To take our recent example:
You (somehow) found the video interview conducted by that (what did you call him? :) ) "half naked YouTuber" and posted it... Perhaps you had a point to make? I'll not likely seek out other videos by him; but I assume his guest relayed his own impressions accurately. and I found his story interesting. (Not enlightening, because it wasn't surprising in any way.)
IIRC, you posted it right after I posted Dave Bowman's "First Strike" episode... (Although you could learn about the man himself via that internet-thingy, I'll mention that he spent most of his time in the U.S. Navy as a fire-control officer aboard a Boomer... He's not just some YouTuber.[1])
I take it your ire came from my observation that Fox News has a real news division. Just like, say, CNN used to have a real opinion division!

Sarah Palin said in her interview with Couric that, yes, as the governor of the U.S. state in closest proximity to Russia, she had occasion to interact with Russian officials...on trade, and other matters. (You do know, most of our presidents have been state governors?[2]) And, yes, that was likely more experience than most state governors (or senators!) had in dealing with the Russians.
But you like the caricature so much, you'd never admit it, eh? :)

I honestly didn't know SDI was the source of your "moral" outrage... I didn't know you were capable of such naivety! But, live and learn. (I well remember the Soviets' first response: How dare you try to defend yourself? It was almost considered an act of war!)
It did play a part in the regime's demise. Good enough for government work, I say.
About USSR I have known since birth that it is evil. It did not require any figuring whatsoever.
Imbibed with your mother's milk, eh? But your penchant for hyperbole is legendary! I take your point though: Anyone at all familiar with the Soviet regime would find all avenues of estimation would lead to that sad conclusion.

I trust you can distinguish between the regime and the people? I never hated Ruskies, and I don't hate Russians now. I do think Putin is an unnecessary hardship — for Russia, and its neighbors.
Likewise, I don't idealize Ukraine... (We'll hear more about that, when the Republicans re-take the House of Representatives.)

BTW: If you have an infallible source, you're delusional! :)
A wise Commander Spock once said "Understanding is not approval..." I'd add: Disapproval is not understanding...

Another example of your bias obviating your perception and your argument:
I remember -way back when- you scoffing at the movie Independence Day, because the heroic duo hacked the Alien ships using (gasp!) a Macintosh... But, since the alien ships had coordinated their attack using Earth's radio communications signals, any computer would have done the job, provided the hacker had the requisite knowledge of the system. Jeff Goldblum's character was -according to his mother- a glorified TV repairman! :)
And for years was a host of a radio program in my locality.
Perhaps you disapprove? You might prefer there be a school where future presidents are properly educated, perhaps... :)
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: jax on 2022-04-03, 11:16:35
Quite the remarkable (and typical) screed (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=2398.msg86822#msg86822)... :)

It's difficult to distinguish which came first, the anti-Americanism or the pretentious know-it-all-ism! But it's not quite a chicken-and-egg situation. Since you couch your barbs in the guise of observations, I'll reply in kind:
The Europeans have always looked down their noses at America. Their history makes them all-but incapable of escaping the silly class structures that color their world view, and they readily revert to denigrating their fellow Europeans when America loses their limited attention! :)


Why is there no thread about the current U.S. administration? (Not that I'm surprised...)

I was just reminded (by a former general officer appearing on a Fox News program) that the Biden administration's first reaction to the Russian invasion of Ukraine was to offer Zelenskiy "a ride" out of town... President  Zelenskiy replied "I don't need a ride... I need weapons!"
Makes me wonder who's "side" the Biden administration is on...

Did that "news" ever get featured by European journalists?

You are showing your age. There have been superiority and inferiority complexes, admiration and contempt, on both US and European sides through the entire history of the US. By now the relationship has matured and those younger than us have a fairly normal sideways view of the Trans-Atlantic relationship.

https://youtu.be/PoaOwSPJPHw?t=135&end=190

The generalisation "group X has always done Y against group Z" rarely apply for non-trivial values of X, Y, Z and "always". European anti-americanism has ebbed and flowed. With Trump gone it is currently at an ebb. The failure to come up with something resembling a green deal and a less than elegant withdrawal from Afghanistan did count against the Biden administration, but the masterful handling of the Ukraine crisis that became a full invasion has more than made up for that. And Ukraine and Russia are far closer to us than Afghanistan is. I am about 800 miles from Kyiv, Ersi 600 miles, and Frenzie 1100 miles. My cottage is further away from me than Kyiv is.

Unlike you, we followed the invasion in real time (well I did, but was hardly alone). The prevailing view (which I also subscribed to) was that Russia could take, but could not hold. As it turned out Russia couldn't take either, but that was less than obvious at the time.

Zelenskyy would be very valuable to Putin captured, less so dead, and a problem if alive and broadcasting, especially inside Ukraine. I thought he was brave but stupid to stay in Kyiv. Posting that video of himself outside in central Kyiv was show-off, an effective one.  The US offer came the night after, the Russians had taken Hostomel, and were getting closer to fully encircling Kyiv, It was a reasonable offer, but not a necessary one. And then the Russian advance in the north ran out of gas.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2022-04-03, 12:47:11
I do appreciate your views, jax; and those of ersi and Frenzie. And you make fair points... But I think I have a better grasp of the whither and whence we can expect from the Biden administration. "Masterful"! Really?
but the masterful handling of the Ukraine crisis that became a full invasion has more than made up for that

But Hi! Ho! Laddies and Jellybeans! RDC will ride to the rescue... Sort of!
Quote
The push for Europe to achieve strategic autonomy from the United States is being spearheaded by Macron, who, as part of his reelection campaign, apparently hopes to replace former German Chancellor Angela Merkel as the de facto leader of Europe.

Macron, who claims that NATO is "brain dead," argues that Europe needs its own military because, according to him, the United States is no longer a reliable ally. He cites as examples: U.S. President Joe Biden's precipitous withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan; the growing pressure on Europe to take sides with the United States on China; and France's exclusion from a new security alliance in the Indo-Pacific region.

Even before Russia invaded Ukraine, many EU member states disagreed with Macron. Eastern European countries know that neither the EU nor France can match the military capabilities offered by NATO and the United States. Other countries are concerned about a panoply of issues ranging from financial costs to national sovereignty. Still others are opposed to creating a parallel structure to NATO that could undermine the transatlantic alliance.

Many EU countries insist on respecting former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's famous "three Ds": no decoupling of European security from the United States and NATO; no duplicating capabilities and structures that already exist within NATO; and no discriminating against NATO members that are not members of the EU.
(source (https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/18395/eu-global-power-strategy))

Yes, I admit I'm showing my age! Dag-nammit. :) Here's a stolen bit, to add to my mea culpa:
Quote
Before the Sixties, youthful elites were close enough to their patrimony to respect its intellect, energy, values and travail. Liberal guilt, such as it was, rarely went further left than Rockefeller Republican.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2022-04-03, 13:30:19
From my mailbox this morning:
Quote
The bottom line is Joe Biden — and most of the civilized world — wants to see Vladimir Putin out of power in Russia. More to the point: they want to see his regime changed and him most likely Gaddafi’d for his sins. And, to be frank, who can blame them?

There is just one problem: getting rid of Vlad means World War Three. And I can tell you from gaming out such a conflict countless times in simulators, such a conflict leaves tens of millions of people dead.

But let’s step back for a moment. I’m going to cut the president a little bit slack for saying out loud what we are all thinking. Biden surely was speaking from the heart, and he hasn’t been shy about calling President Putin every name in the book over the last few weeks either.

Considering Biden’s remarks, we do need to consider what has been a clear sea change in Russia policy due to Putin’s shocking invasion of Ukraine, which while warranted, could truly threaten Putin’s reign.

If you compile the tens of billions of dollars in military aid to Ukraine and the now trillions of dollars in mounting economic sanctions, the Russian state now faces the most serious crisis to its survival since Hitler invaded the old Soviet Union in 1941.

Six months from now, Russia’s economy could be on the verge of death, due not only to sanctions but also to the fact that most major companies want nothing to do with anything Russian-related: the reputational damage is too much to take on.

So in fact, yes, even if it was not intended, the combined actions of the planet to transform Russia into the new Nazi Germany means in the months to come, regime change will morph into the de facto goal. And Biden let the cat out of the bag.

But we all know such words — and those actions — will have consequences.
(source (https://spectatorworld.com/topic/joe-biden-slip-up-regime-change-russia/))

I chided ersi (above, Footnote 2.) so The End of History guy's say (https://spectatorworld.com/topic/neck-russia-heading-outright-defeat-francis-fukuyama/) should be pertinent?
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: ersi on 2022-04-03, 14:57:19
Kantian metaphysics aside, determining fact from fiction, fact from opinion, is a real-world skill, my friend.
Correct! This is why we are not giving up on you. You need to learn that skill.

You (somehow) found the video interview conducted by that (what did you call him? :) ) "half naked YouTuber" and posted it... Perhaps you had a point to make?
The point of the video is that the interviewee provides an insight into the rank-and-file editor role in journalism. Should be particularly interesting since the employer is RT.

The interviewee is a journalist talking about his work. And the half-naked youtuber is not a bad interviewer, but quite encouraging and gets the interviewee to open up.

But it does not make the video itself journalism. This form of youtubing is informal and casual. It is "professional" only in the narrow sense that the youtuber lives off of YT revenue.

When a plumber talks about plumbing, he is not doing plumbing.

I'll not likely seek out other videos by him; but I assume his guest relayed his own impressions accurately. and I found his story interesting. (Not enlightening, because it wasn't surprising in any way.)
Yes, this was the only modest point.

Here's another even less inspiring, insightful or enlightening interview with a Nato officer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-v0abcM7x8w

In summer probably in year 99, 00 or 01 (now this year would be important to remember, but unfortunately I don't), I happened to encounter a Nato trooper from Italy. We found a common topic in geopolitics. He was adamant that Bin Laden was a real problem. I maintained that to say this indicates that one is very hard in the lookout for problems.

Since this was before the 9/11 attacks, I have often thought back to this discussion. Was he right that Bin Laden was a real problem (because some time later 9/11 happened) or is it right to conclude that Nato had found a target, was prepping soldiers for it and 9/11 had already been decided in advance, so to say? What do you think?

Sarah Palin said in her interview with Couric that, yes, as the governor of the U.S. state in closest proximity to Russia, she had occasion to interact with Russian officials...on trade, and other matters. (You do know, most of our presidents have been state governors?) And, yes, that was likely more experience than most state governors (or senators!) had in dealing with the Russians.
But you like the caricature so much, you'd never admit it, eh? :)
Of course living in a particular place gives one particular experience. I should know. I grew up in USSR, so I beat you any day when it comes to life in USSR.[1] The issue with Sarah Palin is only this: She said that you can see Russia from Alaska. She said so apart from any caricature or irony. It is merely factual to acknowledge that she said so.

You said that Sarah Palin had not said so; it was an SNL skit instead, a caricature. The fact is that *both* Sarah Palin and the SNL skit said so, and Sarah Palin said it first. To be honest, I had not even heard about the SNL skit before you mentioned it and linked to it. I had seen only the actual interviews with Sarah Palin.

In my European experience (and other Europeans here feel free to concur or debunk), SNL is one of those American culture elements that has no effect in Europe. I know that SNL is a massive cultural phenomenon in USA, and lots of American cultural phenomena, such as Hollywood movies, rock bands or hamburgers are commonplace in Europe(an awareness) too, but SNL is not among these. Hardly anyone in Europe knows that SNL exists or what it is. Another all-American thing that does not touch Europe at all is Superbowl.

I trust you can distinguish between the regime and the people?
Of course I can. The problem is that you cannot. You are a living embodiment of American wilful invincible ignorance and partisan bickering - without a reason to be any of it. You are not a government worker or a party official, and you are below middle class. So, given your actual social status, all your interests should be concentrated on making a decent living, instead of making apologies for the regime that has failed to provide for you in any way. Yet all you do is make apologies for the regime - even worse, demanding that the regime would not provide for anyone. This is highly curious, let's say.

I honestly didn't know SDI was the source of your "moral" outrage... I didn't know you were capable of such naivety! But, live and learn. (I well remember the Soviets' first response: How dare you try to defend yourself? It was almost considered an act of war!)
E.g. mobilisation is an act of war. Piling up troops to Ukraine's border under the pretext of military exercises was an aggressive move, even though it was not an attack until it became an attack. Well, wrt Ukraine, Russia had already attacked, annexed Crimea and separated Donbass.

Similarly, Reagan's last thrust to ramp up nuclear arms race was an actual battle in Cold War. It is silly to pretend that it was just about defense. USSR lost the final battle and the entire Cold War with it. The only possible excuse is that it was not a hot war.
This is a given of course. But the fact that I also beat you any day when it comes to USA should be quite worrisome to you.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: Frenzie on 2022-04-03, 15:09:12
In my European experience (and other Europeans here feel free to concur or debunk), SNL is one of those American culture elements that has no effect in Europe. I know that SNL is a massive cultural phenomenon in USA, and lots of American cultural phenomena, such as Hollywood movies, rock bands or hamburgers are commonplace in Europe(an awareness) too, but SNL is not among these. Hardly anyone in Europe knows that SNL exists or what it is. Another all-American thing that does not touch Europe at all is Superbowl.
It depends a bit on how broadly you define SNL. The Blues Brothers for example is a beloved movie, and various Tina Fey movies are quite popular as well. I suppose culturally speaking we should simply regard them as a form of Hollywood, but they did come out of SNL.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: jax on 2022-04-03, 15:43:00
I do appreciate your views, jax; and those of ersi and Frenzie. And you make fair points... But I think I have a better grasp of the whither and whence we can expect from the Biden administration. "Masterful"! Really?


Really. You yourself gave several reasons why it was masterful. Countries, their leaders anyway, have interests. France's relationship with NATO was uneasy long before Macron. Macron is arguably one of the most pro-NATO presidents in history. France is also dead-set against any EU eastwards expansion. Never mind Ukraine and Turkey, even tiny Ex-Yugoslav republics about as far east as Italy, and west of Bulgaria, are a bit much for the French. The French talk of strategic autonomy is just that, French, but it is still EU policy. Most of us would read this as Europeans should better do European things in Europa, which people on both sides of the Atlantic should agree on. But there is an undertext of duplication and displacement of the Trans-Atlantic partnership with a pure European.

This wouldn't go well with the Germans, the European Atlantic countries, or any country bordering Russia. Germany is very Pro-American to a point, but while it is more instinctive with Germans above their 40ies, it's more transactional with those younger. There is a similar age divide in the relationship with Russia. The announced huge defence spending increases after the invasion not only pushes Germany over the 2% of GDP like Obama, Trump, and Biden (and many European countries) wanted, and Germany promised in 2014, it will turn Germany into the third biggest spender on defence in the world, after USA and China (and before India and Russia). It is a massive policy shift, with permanent consequences.


Explainer: The proposed hike in German military spending
(https://www.sipri.org/commentary/blog/2022/explainer-proposed-hike-german-military-spending)


I am sceptic to the goal of spending money, when the spenders in question have no idea on what and for what purpose. Peacekeeping in Ethiopia? Islamic terrorists? However the invasion of Ukraine has (presumably and hopefully) focused minds, and in particular which spending gives the best results. Some war machines have performed badly in the last wars in Europe, the Middle East and Africa, others well. There will be traditional orders, expect more European orders of F-35 because it is easy to do when you have the money, and that should make Lockheed-Martin thrilled. But also some true 21st century fighting platforms.

All this care of Putin, you say, and not Biden. That is largely true, but not completely. 2014 changed opinions on Putin and what he was up to, there were sanctions and not Reset Buttons since then, but it didn't fundamentally change priorities. Now priorities have changed. This didn't happen over the night of 24/25 February. It's been happening over the last half year. Putin is the main protagonist and antagonist, if he had restrained himself none of this had happened and FOX News would have said that Biden was crazy or senile or both. But in second position comes the US administration and bureaucracy.  The US clearly had the best intel (Vidaud may have been a bit of a fall guy though).

French military spy chief quits after failure to predict Russian invasion (https://www.france24.com/en/france/20220331-french-military-spy-chief-quits-after-failure-to-predict-russian-invasion)

In third position there is a bit of generation shift with European leaders, less tied up with the past (we still got many old fogies, mind you). Hopefully Hungary will perform in the election tonight, though it is against the odds.

A wild gerrymander makes Hungary's Fidesz party hard to dislodge (https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2022/04/02/a-wild-gerrymander-makes-hungarys-fidesz-party-hard-to-dislodge)



Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2022-04-03, 16:13:49
She said that you can see Russia from Alaska. She said so apart from any caricature or irony. It is merely factual to acknowledge that she said so.
I went back to my post and copied the (3rd) link (https://youtu.be/-ZVh_u5RyiU?t=557) I gave, the Couric interview, starting a 9 minutes 17 seconds in... Nope! That's not what she (Palin) said.

But I have more posts to read...the forum software reminds me!
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: ersi on 2022-04-03, 16:58:18
It depends a bit on how broadly you define SNL. The Blues Brothers for example is a beloved movie, and various Tina Fey movies are quite popular as well. I suppose culturally speaking we should simply regard them as a form of Hollywood, but they did come out of SNL.
Oh yes, there was also that attrocious female version of Ghostbusters that I successfully avoided. But among my circle of acquaintances I was the only one who knew that the cast was drawn from SNL. In fact I am the only one who knows what SNL is. Others know some SNL cast from elsewhere, but don't know that they are SNL cast.

I went back to my post and copied the (3rd) link (https://youtu.be/-ZVh_u5RyiU?t=557) I gave, the Couric interview, starting a 9 minutes 17 seconds in... Nope! That's not what she (Palin) said.
You pointless nitpicker.

Quote from: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/couric-gov-palin-the-interviews/
Couric: You've cited Alaska's proximity to Russia as part of your foreign policy experience. What did you mean by that?
This question means that Sarah Palin had already said this on an earlier occasion. Next, in her answer, Palin confirms it and elaborates on it.

I don't know where Sarah Palin said this first, but most clearly she said it here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGSJCDw3ZBw (just 12 seconds, so watch the whole thing!) And here, too, the interviewer starts with "What insight into Russia does the proximity of the state give you?" meaning that this was known from earlier still.

Given these situations, I'd suspect that Alaska's proximity to Far East Russia was a point prominently featured on Palin's platform! But as a minimum, she definitely said this repeatedly.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2022-04-03, 17:27:47
Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2022-04-03, 02:50:50 (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?msg=86827)I trust you can distinguish between the regime and the people?
Of course I can. The problem is that you cannot. You are a living embodiment of American wilful invincible ignorance and partisan bickering - without a reason to be any of it.
Ah! The Famous ersi Vitriolic Verbiage! I'm stung — by a mosquito... :)

Quote
You are not a government worker or a party official, and you are below middle class. So, given your actual social status, all your interests should be concentrated on making a decent living,
And, then, the European wasp! But I'm not allergic... :) I'm retired.

It's true, I never lusted after money. Nor have I ever felt superior to those who had less than I; nor inferior to those who had more!
I have enough, and am mostly content with my circumstance. And -this should not surprise you- I'm not envious of others' good fortune. I made my choices; I had different goals.

instead of making apologies for the regime that has failed to provide for you in any way. Yet all you do is make apologies for the regime - even worse, demanding that the regime would not provide for anyone. This is highly curious, let's say. (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?msg=86827)
Well, I do receive a monthly Social Security check. And, over the years, I've availed myself of some Veterans Benefits[1]. And -of course- I qualify for Medical, California's state-run version of Medicaid. (But I don't use it...I have Medicare.) Food Stamp benefits, ditto; I'm not deprived or starving, not even "food insecure"...
I'm not an apologist. But I don't shy from praising government actions (and actors) that I find commendable. And criticizing actions (and actors) that I find venal, vapid or voracious...
Is desiring -nay, demanding! as you say- honest government a futile fixation? Is hoping for intelligent -and perhaps wise leaders pie-in-the-sky? Well, brother, I'm too ornery to acquiesce to anything less than mediocrity.
I wasn't raised to it.

Yeah: I know I'm famous for taking my time composing my posts....and editing them. Luckily, this is a forum, not a journal. :)
My burial will not burden my family! Yea! :)
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2022-04-03, 18:00:08
You pointless nitpicker.
Not the way you imply... BTW: The snippet has her saying what you want, and is short enough to avoid any words that might not fit your prejudiced view... And -gee whiz and golly!- even that little you heard was factually correct!

Sometimes, you're like a dog with a bone... (Wonder how you'll howl, when you find it's your own tail!)
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: ersi on 2022-04-03, 19:38:42
And -gee whiz and golly!- even that little you heard was factually correct!
So, now you know that the SNL skit was faithfully conveying its source material. Don't make the knee-jerk assumption that everything in SNL is liberal lies. If it were liberal lies, it would mean that SNL writers would have to be creative. It turns out they are not.

It's true, I never lusted after money. Nor have I ever felt superior to those who had less than I; nor inferior to those who had more!
I have enough, and am mostly content with my circumstance. And -this should not surprise you- I'm not envious of others' good fortune. I made my choices; I had different goals.
All this comes across as hyper-individualist and anti-society. When you are anti-society to this extent, it does a great deal to explain why your ideas are so painfully disconnected from any sort of reality, including how your own life turned out.

My ideas, on the other hand, are very much connected to how my life turned out. I am the oldest child in a family of seven children. Since I had to babysit them so much, supervise their play, help them with homework, resolve their fights etc., my siblings see me as an extra parent rather than a brother. Or you could say I am Big Brother - and this directly relates to the way I grew up, and it relates to the way society needs to be - insofar as society is modelled on family, which is an analogy that I take very far, all the way really.

In family, economy/business and government are one and the same thing. Market and government are not opposites. Therefore, corporations can be seen as a kind of government. Therefore, corporations should probably not be free from the kind of accountability and transparency that is required of government.

Also, in the same vein, governments are a type of market. If you favour "free markets" so much, there should be no obstacle to government to operate as a market agent. In reality of course markets are necessarily regulated to provide the "freedom" (actually, fairness), because everybody who enters the market at a later point is at a disadvantage compared to those who were there earlier, smaller agents are at a disadvantage compared to bigger agents, ruthless/criminal agents have an advantage over modest agents etc. all of which are problems that "self-regulation" will never correct. If you disagree, you are basically saying that there is no difference between well-raised and neglected children, between bullies and victims of bullies. But there is.

And so on and so forth.

I'm not an apologist. But I don't shy from praising government actions (and actors) that I find commendable. And criticizing actions (and actors) that I find venal, vapid or voracious...
Is desiring -nay, demanding! as you say- honest government a futile fixation? Is hoping for intelligent -and perhaps wise leaders pie-in-the-sky? Well, brother, I'm too ornery to acquiesce to anything less than mediocrity.
Sure sure, commendability and honesty and intelligence, all noble motives. I'll take this seriously as soon as you are commendable and honest and intelligent yourself.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2022-04-04, 00:02:21
I'll take this seriously as soon as you are commendable and honest and intelligent yourself.
:) Another howler!

I can understand the penchant to push an analogy too far... But your focus is almost pathological! Useful insights are like numerals, whether you are -say- a constructivist or hold to the logistic thesis, they form an infinite class. (The smallest such, to be sure; but infinite nonetheless.) To limit your explanatory tools to a single insight strikes me as unnecessarily constraining.
Need I add, the urge to do so seems the result of a stunted development? :)
(I two had years tending my younger siblings. But only one brother and one sister; and not too many years...

If you chide me for not being a happy little worker bee, I'll take it good-naturedly: The work-a-day world never fully occupied me. (But I frequently excelled at assigned tasks...) Would it surprise you to hear that when I was young I had definite plans for my life? Well, things didn't work out... Regret and sorrow are both unavoidable; but placing them at the same level would be foolish. For one thing, regrets can readily be manufactured [iad infinitum[/i].

the SNL skit was faithfully conveying its source material
I remember a time when comedians considered all politicians fair game. (It wasn't so long ago.) Caricature (satire in general) involves abstracting a singular trait and grossly exaggerating it — for comic effect. It can be telling as well as cruel. You'd prefer, I'd guess, that the cruelty be most pronounced...
Without a ready supply of people to look down upon, you'd feel awfully small.

Do you really believe all this psychologizing and making so many arguments and disagreements is helpful? (But perhaps it's mildly entertaining to others...?)
All this comes across as hyper-individualist and anti-society.
Not having had the benefit of growing up in a police state can be disorienting, I guess. Even so, I never succumbed to the New Age search for self, nor felt the need to.
Sp that I can repeat one of my favorite quips, I repeat myself: I like people in general and in particular; and I mostly get along easily. That's not surprising — I was raised by people! :)
A final question: Do you feel that you "raised" yourself?
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2022-04-04, 03:40:13
Inappropriate humor... (https://youtu.be/mojRh5OGqgo?t=440)is a good thing! :)

As is reasonable accommodation (http://* Oops! It's hard for me to adapt to "new" systems that aren't multi-user...)...
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: jax on 2022-06-23, 05:46:44



Estonia’s PM says country would be ‘wiped from map’ under existing Nato plans (https://www.ft.com/content/a430b191-39c8-4b03-b3fd-8e7e948a5284)

Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: ersi on 2022-06-23, 14:52:33
Estonia's PM polled very badly during covid years. The policies sucked, the communication was very bad, and obvious abuses by state officials, such as destroying the entire stockpile of vaccines at one point, were left with no response. (No wonder, as her party is also in general anti anything that is good for the people and extremely insistent on individual accountability i.e. zero accountability on the state administration.) Now that the front with Ukraine is open, she is polling much better, because all attention is on foreign policy issues; interior policies have stopped (well, she also crashed the government and we are in a government crisis right now, but nobody cares about that).

Of course right now is the time to build up Nato forces here. There will likely never be any EU defence mechanism - besides Nato -, so right now is also the time to develop a unified Baltic strategy. For a unified Baltic strategy, one should impress more a popular will of self-defence, similar to what Ukrainians have.

Geopolitically the weakest point of Nato (in our neck of the woods) is the Suwalki Gap (https://i0.wp.com/www.7dayadventurer.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/image-18.jpg), very easy for Russia to attack and manipulate if they wanted (and they have). It's at the same time also a vulnerable point for Russia and Lithuania decided to be ahead of the curve (https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/explainer-russia-lithuania-tensions-rising-85560997) for once. Lithuania's transit ban against Russia on sanctioned goods (most importantly steel and oil) has caused a stockpiling frenzy among Kaliningradsters (https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/06/20/panic-buying-in-kaliningrad-as-lithuania-bans-rail-cargo-from-russia-a78044) (mostly for construction materials, heavy tools and other hardware products).
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: jax on 2022-06-23, 16:28:23
A likely wargaming outcome before the Russian invasion would be a swap: Russia could likely take and hold Estonia and good chunks of Latvia and Lithuania, but lose Kaliningrad.

Now the Estonian position is stronger, and the Russian weaker. Putin or successor might worry less about getting angry glares if they were to "denazify" the Baltic States, their relationship with the West is as bad as it gets, but their position is weakened.

If will be far easier to reinforce Estonia from Finland than from Poland (especially with a Suwalki capture). Russia can't expect air superiority or naval superiority over the Baltic Sea, and Sweden is a good staging point.

I think the tripwire strategy would have been sufficient, given that Russia has far too much other to lose. But you are moving up rank from level 1 to level 2, maybe in time touching 3.

Level 0: Full Finlandisation
Level 1: An invasion would not be cost-effective
Level 2: An invasion would cost the invader more than the defender
Level 3: Outcome of an invasion would be unpredictable
Level 4: An invasion would not be feasible
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: ersi on 2022-06-23, 20:54:34
A likely wargaming outcome before the Russian invasion would be a swap: Russia could likely take and hold Estonia and good chunks of Latvia and Lithuania, but lose Kaliningrad.
As insane as Russia's wargaming seems, Putin has been reading Western sensibilities accurately enough (while reading own military capabilities wrong). Westerners are, at the bottom of their hearts, non-committal hypocrites, and this is not changing even now. A direct confrontation with Russia would hurt them so they avoid it. Westerners stand up strictly only for their own interests and do not lift a finger for anyone else's - except as a ploy to squeeze something out of the victim.

Once the dust in Ukraine settles for a little while,[1] Putin can safely bet that by launching a calculated "special operation" in the Baltics he can make at least the Suwalki gap his own land bridge and not lose a millimetre of Kaliningrad. Kaliningrad is Russian territory and Westerners will absolutely not threaten it. Because Westerners are nuke cowards.

The best that can happen in such a case is that Poland and the Baltic countries form a military union and fight back like Ukraine is fighting right now. If anybody would start battles over Kaliningrad, it would be Poland in alliance with the Baltic countries. But I do not believe in a best-case scenario. USA's next president can step in, pick up the best spoils of the fragmented EU and divide the world with Putin to form an alliance against China.

The way to avoid this fate is to save Ukraine this time. All of Ukraine, including Donbass, Crimea and Sevastopol. Anything less is a final betrayal. But I guess somebody has found a way to make huge profits on the fact that the breadbasket of the world is blockaded. Profits matter more, obviously. No argument there.

...you are moving up rank from level 1 to level 2, maybe in time touching 3.

Level 0: Full Finlandisation
Level 1: An invasion would not be cost-effective
Level 2: An invasion would cost the invader more than the defender
Level 3: Outcome of an invasion would be unpredictable
Level 4: An invasion would not be feasible
Finland was finlandised far too long, yes, but as we have seen lately, this ranking does not work based on the proximity to Russia. E.g. Germany and Italy are more finlandised right now than any country closer to Russia. The Baltic countries have very effectively escaped finlandisation - and also loudly called out West's finlandisation - ever since they re-gained independence.
I think we can already conclude that the West betrayed Ukraine once again. In addition to Crimea and Donbass, Ukraine will need to give up more territory in next negotiations. Germany and France keep demanding it. They gave Ukraine away to Putin for nothing after Crimean invasion and right now they are doing it again, slightly less cheaply. And they'd also fake-begrudgingly get rid of the Baltic countries, if Putin make a serious bid.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: jax on 2022-06-24, 08:11:05
Finland during the Cold War was actually a 1 on the scale I made up, combining being useful (like in trade), not being actively harmful, and being difficult to invade and hold. I faked it with calling it "Full Finlandisation" because I don't remember the word for a state fully at the mercy of a belligerent neighbour (a vassal state is one that pays tribute/is subservient, that doesn't match).

We obviously can't conclude that "the West betrayed Ukraine once again", because it isn't true. First, nobody owes Ukraine, or Estonia, or Sweden, or Europe in general, anything. The EU or NATO aren't obliged to take in Ukraine or Estonia or Sweden, though if they do they are indeed obliged to defend them. Thus the NATO promises are stronger to Estonia than to Ukraine or to Sweden. Which is a headache because Estonia isn't easy to defend, a small, relatively flat country next to some of Russia's largest military bases. Estonia is as much a NATO country as Kaliningrad is Russian. Would NATO go to nuclear war over Ukraine? No, but neither would Russia (primarily because they would lose). 

The same goes for economy. Europe is expected to lose 1½–2 trillion euro in lost growth this year due to the Russian invasion. The few billions going to arm Ukraine is pocket money. But EU can be expected to fund Ukraine with hundreds of billions mostly after the war, and perhaps if unlikely Russia will chip in with some war reparation as well. They/we don't have to, and there would be voices that say we shouldn't. It does not seem that these voices are going to be heeded. 

Europe does not profit from this war, nor do any European country including Russia. They have exchanged a low-cost frontline inside Ukraine with a high-cost. As long as Ukraine doesn't budge Russia will have to eventually, years from now. And Europe hasn't budged, not even Italy or Greece. 
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: ersi on 2022-06-24, 09:36:53
We obviously can't conclude that "the West betrayed Ukraine once again", because it isn't true. First, nobody owes Ukraine, or Estonia, or Sweden, or Europe in general, anything.
If Europe does not owe anything to Ukraine, then Ukraine should owe nothing to Europe either. But Europe acted as if Ukraine owed something to Europe (such as releasing Timoshenko from prison in order to get the candidate status in 2012-4),[1] so, I guess you see the point. There's a relationship, as a minimum due to geographical proximity, there are mutual expectations, particularly the expectations towards closer integration.

The "does not owe" logic does not apply in neighbourhood geopolitics. At the latest, Bosnia should have served as a major lesson to the EU: When there's a war at Europe's doorstep and the EU fails to do anything about it, then NATO (headed by USA) will step in and the EU will look like a spineless and incompetent moron that it is. It is very much in the common European interest to stop being a moron.

I have full faith in diplomacy. I know that diplomacy works. So it saddens me a lot that the EU fails at it consistently like a blockheaded donkey. At some point enough members will resolve to dismember the donkey.

The same goes for economy. Europe is expected to lose 1½–2 trillion euro in lost growth this year due to the Russian invasion. The few billions going to arm Ukraine is pocket money. But EU can be expected to fund Ukraine with hundreds of billions mostly after the war, and perhaps if unlikely Russia will chip in with some war reparation as well. They/we don't have to, and there would be voices that say we shouldn't. It does not seem that these voices are going to be heeded.
Much depends on how things will stand after the war. On some plausible after-the-war scenarios - i.e. Russia wins! - there will be no Ukraine or EU to pay reparations to. On other plausible scenarios - Russia stands ground, i.e. wins in its own eyes at least - Russia will not pay any reparations no matter how nicely you ask. On both of those scenarios, as soon as you start rolling back the sanctions, it will count as a final betrayal of Ukraine.

So, I'd say save Ukraine by making Russia's Black Sea Fleet homeless. Then no reparations needed.

Europe does not profit from this war, nor do any European country including Russia.
A common European cause is of course not profiting from this war. But is there such a thing as a common European cause? Is there a single united Europe or are there rather EU member countries with very different interests, occasionally severely undermining the common European interest?

At this point, the EU needs saving as much as Ukraine does. The first point is for all members to acknowledge that there is a common interest. Second would be to formulate the interest, which right now should not be very hard: Survival of the EU. Because if Ukraine will be served a last betrayal, then all countries between Germany and Russia get the message loud and clear; it will not matter whether the EU biggies agree that there is such a message or not.

In fact, if there is any disagreement on this, then it means that we are not capable of formulating a common interest even when faced with existential threats. Which indicates that we do not have any common interest. So the EU will self-destruct.

We managed to kick out one Trojan horse: UK. Obviously, we cannot kick out Germany and France. They will have to grow up and start behaving. But you (and they themselves) think they are doing fine and dandy, so...
The timepoint is important because that's when, one could argue partly due to the behaviour of the EU biggies, Ukraine lost Crimea. Sure the EU biggies would disagree, but their behaviour ever since, including the admission of candidacy just now when the situation is far worse from what it was in 2014, looks very much guilty as charged.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: ersi on 2022-06-30, 06:00:41
Turkey, Sweden and Finland signed a memorandum (https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-12515566) that seems to appease Turkey enough to not object the accession of Sweden and Finland to Nato. The memorandum is about fighting terrorism and giving up terrorists to be tried in the other country. Turkey's media declared victoriously that Finland and Sweden are now committed to give up the Kurds whose list Turkey has been floating around. But Finland and Sweden say nothing has changed with regard to Kurds in Finland and Sweden.

Funny thing, terrorism. Turkey, a Nato member, thinks Kurds are terrorists, while all other Nato members would rather have Kurds fight Isis, because Isis is terrorist. Overall, Nato has betrayed Kurds once again. Memorandums tend to be completely non-committal in practice, but there are not too many contradictory memorandums you can sign without affecting the clarity of your own determination and the relationships around you.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: jax on 2022-07-23, 07:33:46
Germany is re-militarising. The effect will not be a militarily stronger and geopolitically more conscious European Union. The effect will be a more dangerous Germany, repeating history all over again.

As frequently noted, with increases Germany will have the largest military budget in the world, after the US and China. Sure, that is a handful of euros. The EU needs to become more German, but are the Germans themselves up to this? Indications so far are not too impressive. They have been kicking that aforementioned rust, announced that they will be buying some US equipment at inflated prices.

The European Defence Fund (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Defence_Fund) is more interesting for direction. It is a tiny fund (in military terms), but it shows priorities. Same goes for the European Defence Agency (https://eda.europa.eu/). I don't think Germany will be the instigator of change, but it can become a conduit.

More impactful than where Germany is going, is where the US is going. Right now the relationship could hardly be better. Arguably Biden is a better European than Macron or Scholz. That might not last beyond January 2025. Meanwhile Germany considers buying several trinkets from the US.


Germany studies the possibility to purchase US or Israeli air defense missile system (https://www.armyrecognition.com/defense_news_july_2022_global_security_army_industry/germany_studies_the_possibility_to_purchase_us_or_israeli_air_defense_missile_system.html)
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: ersi on 2022-07-23, 08:43:53
The EU needs to become more German...
Whatever it is you mean here, it is not going to happen. Everybody east of Germany has signed Germany off by now. One more back-stabbing move from Germany and the EU is dispersed as quick as the sanctions got agreed on. By back-stabbing moves I mean the initial resistance to aid Ukraine and then promises of weapons followed by non-delivery (https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/politik/baerbock-panzer-ringtausch-polen-ukraine-100.html). Also EU's effective sanctions reversal imposed on Lithuania did not help at all.

If Germany's rearmament will be effective and significant, then Germany will become as dangerous as Russia. There will be no union or alliance with that Germany, because nobody can deny that it is the same pre-WWII trap all over again.

Russia picks up Estonia, we pick up Königsberg. A little prisoner exchange, and status quo ante. Russia cannot win, Russia will not try.
You see, in the EU that everybody east of Germany joined, self-determination and territorial integrity were supposedly important. If half or close to half of the people of western EU think like you, particularly those in decision-making posts, such that giving up a whole unique nation is a non-issue and can be considered not a win for Russia, then this is not the EU we joined. Maybe it would be tolerable if the EU were simply unhelpful, but the kind of EU that you represent is positively harmful, almost as much an existential threat as Russia itself.

So, what will happen is that everybody between Germany and Russia will quickly flush EU and stick with Nato instead. And if the western EU disagrees and also Nato cannot stay together, it will be a proper world war. The way things are right now, the conditions for a wider war are ready and set. I saw it from miles away that the EU would eventually betray Ukraine - and that the EU would have no problem similarly betraying all countries between Germany and Russia. This was clear when the EU betrayed Ukraine in the Crimea situation. Dang, it was already clear when the EU biggies were imposing suicidal border agreements on Baltic countries.

If the union is to be preserved, then Ukraine must be saved in full. This would show EU's commitment to self-determination and territorial integrity of nations. Without this demonstration, the EU will not stay together, because it has too brazenly and too often pissed on its own stated values, even against its own interest of self-preservation. The EU keeps insisting to be not taken seriously.

As to Russia, Crimea was a win. Donbass is a win. Any territorial gain is a win for Russia. Also, any lack of repercussions is a win for Russia. Lack of repercussions such as Germany's empty words on helping Ukraine and the EU's copout on rouble payments for gas and reversal on sanctions in Lithuanian transit. When Russia sees weakness, they get more blood-thirsty. Nobody needs an EU whose main purpose seems to be to satisfy Russia's blood-thirst. Russia's blood-thirst needs to be annihilated. Russia must lose. It is an existential question for the EU. If Russia wins, the EU self-destructs. If we get another stalemate, Russia will not allow too long time to catch breath. Russia will not stop. Russia definitely needs entire Ukraine, not part or half or three thirds of it. Any stalemate ceasefire will be temporary.

For most people on this side, Crimea was the last straw. There are no more straws. For now, the surprising quick consensus on sanctions is the last thing still holding the EU together. When this is revealed to be a sham, the EU will have no more benefit of the doubt from anyone any longer. Existential threats are to be acted upon.

Arguably Biden is a better European than Macron or Scholz.
Well, it is beyond argument that Nato is so much more what Europe (minus Russia) needs right now than the EU. In every situation that requires geopolitical considerations, the EU has shown that it is a threat to its members and to itself. If Nato also fails, Europe will become a failed continent.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: jax on 2022-07-23, 09:52:08
Russia lost Donbas, but then of course it was not their to lose to begin with. They do have a fighting chance of keeping Crimea, Sevastopol (https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-ato/3531184-significant-number-of-russian-warships-moved-from-occupied-crimea-to-russias-novorossiysk.html) at least.

European rearmament means that Russia lost the Baltic Sea as well. The threat towards the Baltic States is real, but the logic of it being a NATO Achilles heel is fading. That in itself is dangerous, the Russian invasion of Ukraine was a consequence of Ukraine slipping through their fingers. But first of all, the Kremlin doesn't care that much about you, secondly they are not capable of any persistent action as long as they are bogged down in Ukraine. The forever war in Donbas was a convenient vehicle to pressure Ukraine, and it still is, but now it is harming Russia as much.

The Kremlin may put their hope to the US midterms (or boon from an Italian election), but if so they will be disappointed. The presidential election could in worst case be more to their liking, but that will be three years after the invasion and these will not be good years for Russia. 

Long term however Germany, not the US, will be your security guarantee. Estonia is not in the Indo-Pacific. 
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: ersi on 2022-07-23, 11:37:31
Long term however Germany, not the US, will be your security guarantee. Estonia is not in the Indo-Pacific.
True, Estonia is not in the Indo-Pacific. Our existential threats are right here: Russia and Germany. Is the Germany of Schröder, Merkel and Scholz any sort of security guarantee? No, it is not. It is a danger, because it is a duplicitous worshipper of Russia and admirer of Putin over fellow EU members.

The security guarantee must be elsewhere, in a union or an alliance that keeps Russia and Germany apart from each other. Therefore, insofar as it is led by the Germany of Schröder, Merkel and Scholz, the EU cannot be a security guarantee.

Against Russia, there is just one security guarantee: Nato. Admittedly, Nato can fall apart. But then everything falls apart. Everything as in nothing short of third world war. Accession of Sweden and Finland to Nato seems to indicate that Nato has still something going for it.

In contrast, the EU is hardly standing. Do you think that when the EU lets Estonia be taken or Lithuania invaded by Russia, then there will be some other small members who will volunteer, "Hey, that thing you did to the Baltics, do it to me next please - I want to sacrifice myself to save our precious union"? Nope, they will instantly consider the union dissolved, commitments annulled. Actually, they are already learning from what happens to Ukraine. They will not wait until the EU starts throwing own members to wolves.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: jax on 2022-07-23, 13:47:59
Thanks to Germany Estonia will not be taken.

NATO and EU are merging in Europe. Norwegians are more seriously considering joining EU (though there is still a solid majority against). NATO is effectively "EU light" or "EU plus". How that merge actually will progress depends on external factors.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: ersi on 2022-07-23, 14:37:23
Thanks to Germany Estonia will not be taken.
Can you give some specific example? Without any backup, this sounds as hollow as the claim that Trump had successes.

NATO and EU are merging in Europe. Norwegians are more seriously considering joining EU (though there is still a solid majority against).
If Norwegians join (which I doubt), it means nothing. Nobody else is joining. Norway, in fact, has been keeping away, and probably has more reasons to keep away henceforth. What everybody (except Russia) really wants to join is Nato. Ukraine may join Nato before joining EU because Ukrainians will obviously look who treated them better in the war, EU or Nato. Nato, obviously.

Nato and EU are not merging. Them merging would mean that Nato would become EU's defence commissariat. Not happening. The EU has other defence projects in mind, several ones that you have mentioned, all driven by France and Germany which means those projects will never live up to the kind of promise of deterrence that Nato has. None of the projects envisions a merger with Nato. The relationship of Nato and EU remains the way it is now until the end.

The security situation is this: Russia is the threat that we must counteract. Yet France and Germany prefer to fatten Russia, even at the cost of EU's easternmost member countries. Therefore any defence project, EU or otherwise, that France and Germany can come up with will inevitably shoot itself in the foot. It's just the character of France and Germany. They cannot do it any differently.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: jax on 2022-11-01, 17:22:37
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FgeVUNNXkAACSXE?format=jpg)
The Baltic States are in a category of their own, measured in percentage of military budget. But it makes perfect sense, considering this: 

12,000 Russian Troops Were Supposed To Defend Kaliningrad. Then They Went To Ukraine To Die. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2022/10/27/12000-russian-troops-once-posed-a-threat-from-inside-nato-then-they-went-to-ukraine-to-die/)

Quote
The formation, deployment and destruction of the 11th Army Corps tell a story that’s bigger than the tragic tale of Russia’s war in Ukraine. The corps, sandwiched between two NATO countries along a strategic sea, was supposed to give Russian forces an advantage in a global war.

Instead, it became cannon fodder for a Ukrainian army that, on paper, was weaker than the Russian army was. Now Kaliningrad is all but defenseless, and the threat the oblast’s troops once posed to NATO … has evaporated.

The 11th Army Corps isn’t really a new formation. It’s a new grouping of existing formations under a single headquarters that itself answers to the Russian navy’s Baltic Fleet. The corps oversees a motorized division, a separate motorized regiment, artillery, rockets, air-defense troops and supporting units.
Before Russia widened its war in Ukraine starting in late February, there were no fewer than 12,000 Russian troops (https://www.valisluureamet.ee/doc/raport/2020-en.pdf) in Kaliningrad with around 100 T-72 tanks, a couple hundred BTR fighting vehicles, Msta-S howitzers and BM-27 and BM-30 rocket-launchers. The 11th Army Corps oversaw most of these forces.

Looming on the western border of Lithuania, one of the weakest NATO member states, the 11th Army Corps was the anvil for a possible Russian invasion of the former Soviet republics Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. The hammer was the 18,000-strong ground force in western Russia on the eastern border of the Baltic states.

If this war lasts much longer the deterrence countermove to invasion/hybrid warfare in Baltic States would no longer be occupying Kaliningrad, but occupying St. Petersburg.


Speaking of the Russian western border, Finland, Sweden: No preconditions on nuclear weapons ahead of Nato membership (https://yle.fi/news/3-12671101)

Makes sense in its context, but long-term the greatest risk of nuclear weapon use in Europe, even with Putin waving them around like now, is "accidental" use (i.e. misjudgement). Actual storage of nuclear weapons nearby Russia would increase that risk.
Title: Re: NATO nonsense
Post by: ersi on 2023-08-20, 06:46:21
A Nato official backtracks (https://www.vg.no/nyheter/utenriks/i/RGw9b8/nato-topp-nyanserer-uttalelse-ukraina-bestemmer-fredsvilkaar) his statement that Ukraine can join Nato in exchange for yielding territory to Russia.

So, the idea was that Ukraine can join Nato in exchange for yielding territory to Russia. Slow down and think about it. It would mean that Russia sets the terms of joining Nato. It would mean that either Russia has input to Nato's decision-making or there is some higher authority above both Nato and Russia who determines how Nato and Russia should balance their decisions. Either way, the decision to join Nato is not subject to Nato treaty.

This was a Nato official, not some prime minister or president. Prime ministers and presidents can fall back to alleged popular opinion or personal opinion. It has been clear enough that the first concern of the western EU members always was that Russia must be fed and doing it at the cost of eastern members is a perfectly justified price to keep "everybody happy".

But officials need to follow guidelines and instructions. In this case, the backtrack refers to a "larger ongoing discussion", meaning it is a more or less commonly held option on the table at Nato. That's Nato now, not just the EU. The statement came from the right-hand man of Stoltenberg, about as high up in Nato as it gets, so it can be treated as an official strategic policy choice.

The backtrack is from "Ukraine can join Nato in exchange for territory" to "Ukraine will determine the conditions of peace", which is not really a backtrack. Namely, Ukraine can easily be pressured to "determine" absolutely anything simply by withholding the military aid. So, in reality, everything is up to what the West is willing to do. The West either acts according to its stated principles and values, such as national self-determination and territorial integrity, or according to its true principles, such as that if Putin wants something, then Putin must get something, Putin must not be humiliated and must save face somehow.

The sad bit here is that this time the West's true values are revealed in Nato. The EU was always a given, known all along. There was still some hope that Nato would hold up to agreed principles and values. Vain hope.

It must not be underestimated how serious this is. Nato has a treaty where the conditions of joining are spelled out. It is not mentioned in the treaty that this happens in exchange for territory to Russia. Yet now this is the condition. An official (as opposed to a politician) must observe the treaty or internal guidelines. Evidently Nato's internal guidelines are now that if someone wants to join, give up some territory to Russia first. What does this do to prospective members but discourage them from joining? Why join Nato when it is as back-stabbing as the EU?

Moreover, this policy change will achieve nothing. Putin will not stop. Give in to his blood-thirst and the blood-thirst only grows. The leftover Ukraine will not stand, but will be taken by Putin later at next opportune moment, with other nearby countries to follow.

Even worse, other dictators are getting the message loud and clear. E.g. China may have hesitated to invade Taiwan thus far, but now it is signalled a green light.

So, understanding all this, who has read the situation correctly from the beginning and made the smartest bets in the Ukraine war? Orban. Congratz.

Everybody who trusted the EU and Nato got completely betrayed for the last time. Well, the pretension continues for a while longer as if nothing happened. It is still up to Ukraine, as they say.