NATO

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

European members should start to contribute more to the alliance financially and militarily. It can't rely solely on the U.S. indefinitely.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

European members should start to contribute more to the alliance financially and militarily. It can't rely solely on the U.S. indefinitely.

Um, what?

There is no "Nato contribution".

Each country invests in its own military, and the EU already spends more than 220 billion, which is more than Russia, and China.

Obviously I didn't reefer to a joint military or a joint military budget. I'd love to see a joing EU military, but even that is merely an idea now.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Should be entirely disbanded.

But then again, according to half this forum, I'm just a tankie/Russian bot, so what do I know?

Actually I'd like to ask you what should happen there, because certain problems we're having now aren't going to dissapear.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Disbanded, Russia isn't really a threat anymore, it's in its last throes. 

In a long-term yes, but we're still away from that point. The history clearly shows decaying powers can be pretty aggressive in order to reassert their diminishing position, and Russia's aggressive tendencies are pretty clear.

I dare say that if not for the NATO/EU membership, Estonia, with its large share of Russian population, might've experienced fate similar to Ukraine by now.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

The bottom line is Russia invaded a sovereign country, unlawfully annexed part of its' territory and continues to wage the war in Donbass. This is unacceptable by any standards and countries of the former Eastern Bloc have all reasons to feel threatened. And if Ukraine wants to be in NATO or maintain close ties it's their right as a sovereign country.

If one believes that the U.S. and Western Europe shouldn't be involved in the region, I don't like it, but can accept as a valid point of view. But making excuses for Russia's actions and trying to shift the responsibility on victims of what was an agression simply doesn't stick.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Disbanded, Russia isn't really a threat anymore, it's in its last throes. 

In a long-term yes, but we're still away from that point. The history clearly shows decaying powers can be pretty aggressive in order to reassert their diminishing position, and Russia's aggressive tendencies are pretty clear.

I dare say that if not for the NATO/EU membership, Estonia, with its large share of Russian population, might've experienced fate similar to Ukraine by now.

Russia isn't just decaying, but utterly screwed.  It's economy is garbage, and there are major ethnic tensions within Russia. 

I have no problems with the Ukraine, Belarus, and Transnistria joining back up with Russia.  It's what they wanted in the referendum in 1991, if we could get Russia to back away from the Baltics and stop screwing with American and European politics.

I assume you're refeering to the Union of Sovereign States project, which of course had real support in most of the Soviet republics, but the opinion dramatically switched after the August coup, with everybody opting for the independence. Of course there were possibilities of integration after that, but in Ukraine's case Crimea/Donbass pushed the country decidively away from Russia.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

If we talk so much about Russia's fears, how about we take a minute to think about why the post-Soviet countries in Europe are afraid of Russia in first place.

I'm sorry, but believing that if there was no NATO/EU expansion in the East, Russia would leave these countries alone and fully respect their sovereignty is a wishful thinking.

Also, for all that "Putin is so rational" nonsense let's go back in time to the Orange Revolution, when he actually acted rationally: resisted the hawks pushing for some sort of an action in the east Ukrainian regions and dealt with the new government in Kiev, thus preserving the Russian influence, weakened for a while but soon rebuilt. What happened in 2014 not only irreversibly pushed Ukraine away from Russia, but was also extremely costly for the latter as well, politically and economically. If the naval bases in Crimea were the issue, I have little doubt Russia would've retained them under the usual arrangements.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Why does this discussion reminds me of the Soviet justification for attacking Finland in 1939?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Why does this discussion reminds me of the Soviet justification for attacking Finland in 1939?

You don't understand - the Soviet Union has a historical right to Finland because the Tsar under the old regime was also Grand Duke of Finland. Also, Finland is being aggressive by refusing to destroy its border fortifications, and anyways the West is making the Soviets do it by being mad at them for invading Poland.

Come to think of this, the Tsar was also "King of Poland". Checkmate, imperialists.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

2. States can make promises when they sign documents, but also when they make verbal agreements. Both in national jurisdiction and international politics, verbal promises can also acquire legal validity, and even legally non-binding agreements are regarded as essential instruments in international politics, as was especially the case during the Cold War. And regarding the point on Russia being the successor state of the Soviet Union (which seems fairly self-evident; look at the START I Treaty, for instance), it still doesn't diminish the fact, one way or another, that the United States went against its assurance not to move eastward, and so I'm sure you can understand why the Russians would regard this as a slight.

Which led the to committ even greater breach of the international commitments by invading a sovereign country and annexing part of its territory, despite being a part to the Budapest Memorandum, among other things.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I've been very critical of the U.S. foreign policy for long time. I've opposed the Iraqi War from day one and participated in numerous demonstrations. I opposed the intervention in Libya. But I'm consistent enough to see which side is the aggressor in this conflict, and which side poses bigger threat.

You can't play a staunch anti-imperialist if this means making apologies for Russia here. Otherwise it's just plain hypocrisy, and that attitude is no diffrent from the attitude of American neocons, just a diffrent master. Invoking "Russia's sphere of influence, NATO expansion in the east" is no diffrent than the U.S. invoking the Monroe Doctrine. 

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Disband it and create a new alliance with Russia against China.

I actually agree completely, though obviously only when Russia becomes a reliable partner.

Before 2010s Russia had enjoyed productive relations with NATO, so it's not impossible.