NATO nonsense - Page 12

Topic: NATO nonsense (Read 50303 times)

Re: NATO nonsense

Reply #275 – 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.

Re: NATO nonsense

Reply #276 – 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/

Re: NATO nonsense

Reply #277 – 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?

Re: NATO nonsense

Reply #278 – 2022-03-21, 18:12:55

About as subtle as this (during pro-Russia/anti-Maidan referendum campaign in Crimea)

Russia was first to blame Naziism on Ukraine. By a long shot.

Re: NATO nonsense

Reply #279 – 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.

Re: NATO nonsense

Reply #280 – 2022-03-22, 06:04:49

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2022-03-21, 17:52:18

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

Re: NATO nonsense

Reply #281 – 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.

Re: NATO nonsense

Reply #282 – 2022-03-22, 09:27:10

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2022-03-22, 08:54:48

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.

Re: NATO nonsense

Reply #283 – 2022-03-23, 01:04:47

Quote from: ersi on 2022-03-22, 01:27:10

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.

Re: NATO nonsense

Reply #284 – 2022-03-23, 05:06:06

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2022-03-23, 01:04:47

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?

Re: NATO nonsense

Reply #285 – 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.”

¹I should say appreciation of their stake...↵

Re: NATO nonsense

Reply #286 – 2022-03-23, 12:01:31

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2022-03-23, 09:59:29

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.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2022-03-23, 09:59:29

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.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2022-03-23, 09:59:29

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.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2022-03-23, 09:59:29

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.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2022-03-23, 09:59:29

(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.

¹I should say appreciation of their stake...↵

Re: NATO nonsense

Reply #287 – 2022-03-23, 13:25:38

Quote from: ersi on 2022-03-23, 04:01:31

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:

Once is a fluke
Twice, a coincidence
Three times, a Law of Nature!

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.)

Re: NATO nonsense

Reply #288 – 2022-03-23, 14:06:31

(Perhaps this will make some amends? It's an interesting read...)

Re: NATO nonsense

Reply #289 – 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.

Re: NATO nonsense

Reply #290 – 2022-03-23, 16:14:00

I trust you meant that as a compliment to University of (our) Georgia's Law School!

Re: NATO nonsense

Reply #291 – 2022-03-25, 05:16:07

Quote from: ersi on 2022-03-21, 16:27:46

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.

Re: NATO nonsense

Reply #292 – 2022-03-25, 07:56:58

Hilarious, jax! And -as crazy as this world sometimes gets- a possibility...

Re: NATO nonsense

Reply #293 – 2022-03-26, 06:30:02

Quote from: jax on 2022-01-22, 12:50:19

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.

Quote from: ersi on 2022-01-22, 15:29:46

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.

Quote from: 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.

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.

Re: NATO nonsense

Reply #294 – 2022-03-26, 08:17:53

Quote from: jax on 2022-03-26, 06:30:02

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.

¹...Donbass, Crimea, and I may be overlooking some places and events...↵

Re: NATO nonsense

Reply #295 – 2022-03-26, 13:22:27

It would be NATO by any other name, 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.

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:

Sweden and Finland will be safer during a Russian crisis inside NATO than outside
while they would be far less safe during the transition period than before
thus they should join when Russia is distracted
Sweden and Finland are separate countries usually at different states politically
There is a high risk for further Russian crises, and when the next arrives, whether under the wise leadership of Putin or someone else, it would be too late for (1-4).

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.

Re: NATO nonsense

Reply #296 – 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

(Part 2 of this interview will premiere on Tues. March 29, at 7:30 p.m. ET.)

Re: NATO nonsense

Reply #297 – 2022-03-27, 07:10:56

Quote from: jax on 2022-03-26, 13:22:27

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?

Re: NATO nonsense

Reply #298 – 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 from CapX?

Re: NATO nonsense

Reply #299 – 2022-03-28, 05:32:53

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2022-03-27, 10:55:19

Perhaps this 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.

¹However, 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.↵