NATO

[American2020]

NATO is now 70 years old.
What should be its role now and in the future ?

Discuss.

[dead0man]

expansion

[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.

[CumbrianLefty]

expansion

Into where/what?

[dead0man]

expansion

Into where/what?

Everywhere.

Long Answer-I'd like something between NATO and the UN.  A new organization doing that would be fine, but I'd honestly prefer we rename and refocus NATO.  It's focused too much on Russia, and that focus keeps Russia feeling just that much more cornered.  I'm not saying Russia isn't a threat or that without NATO they'd be that much less of a douche on the world stage, just that the extra focus from NATO reminds them that we are not friends, natural or of convenience.

Short Answer-Japan,S.Korea,Australia,NZ,Israel,Philippines,any country in Central or South America that wants in, any other country that is a liberal democracy and wants to play too

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

I also agree with this, this needs to be a team effort.

[Omega21]

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.

[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.

[Big Abraham]

Should be entirely disbanded.

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

[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.

[dead0man]

Should be entirely disbanded.

why?

[Big Abraham]

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.

What should happen... where? On the Russian border? Within NATO member states?

Should be entirely disbanded.

why?

Even on the terms proscribed by the architects of American imperialism, the usefulness of NATO ceased to exist after 1991. NATO's supposed original purpose, to deter the West from a Warsaw Pact invasion, had been fulfilled. Since then, NATO has become nothing more than the military arm of American regime change in the far-flung corners of the world, and in Europe it has served only to resuscitate the very issue it claimed victory over: Russian aggression.

[PSOL]

The Unites States and other current illiberal states should withdraw leaving a large liberal democratic bloc that could fend against all threats. It’s obvious that a slight multipolar world might be for the best, not to mention inevitable, solution to current issues and gridlock. It’s ultimately for the best of all parties.

[BenBurch]

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

[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.

[Kingpoleon]

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.

I fully agree with Kalwejt here. The European Union has a stunning economy, roughly 95% of the size of America’s. It has a population of 513 million compared to America’s 327 million. Yet in spite of this, its combined military budget is just over 30% of America’s. This really doesn’t make sense, for one ally to do most of the spending.

[dead0man]

Even on the terms proscribed by the architects of American imperialism, the usefulness of NATO ceased to exist after 1991. NATO's supposed original purpose, to deter the West from a Warsaw Pact invasion, had been fulfilled. Since then, NATO has become nothing more than the military arm of American regime change in the far-flung corners of the world, and in Europe it has served only to resuscitate the very issue it claimed victory over: Russian aggression.

wait wait wait...are you really suggesting Russia wouldn't have invaded Georgia and Ukraine if NATO was NOT around?  You know that's goofy right?  I'm guessing you'd be ok with Russia in control of the Baltics again too.  Well I wouldn't be, the people it Latvia wouldn't be and I know Kal ain't ok with that either.  The Soviet Union was not properly defeated.  They reorganized, turned a few ideological nobs a little and then returned to being what they were before, with a slightly lighter load by letting the PRC take the lead in giving buckets of money and weapons to corrupt douchenozzles in the third world.  It's better in a lot of ways for them, their corrupt leaders can more freely flaunt their wealth in front of the plebs now.  It was rather embarrassing when they did that in 1979.

[Big Abraham]

Even on the terms proscribed by the architects of American imperialism, the usefulness of NATO ceased to exist after 1991. NATO's supposed original purpose, to deter the West from a Warsaw Pact invasion, had been fulfilled. Since then, NATO has become nothing more than the military arm of American regime change in the far-flung corners of the world, and in Europe it has served only to resuscitate the very issue it claimed victory over: Russian aggression.

wait wait wait...are you really suggesting Russia wouldn't have invaded Georgia and Ukraine if NATO was NOT around?  You know that's goofy right?  I'm guessing you'd be ok with Russia in control of the Baltics again too.  Well I wouldn't be, the people it Latvia wouldn't be and I know Kal ain't ok with that either.  The Soviet Union was not properly defeated.  They reorganized, turned a few ideological nobs a little and then returned to being what they were before, with a slightly lighter load by letting the PRC take the lead in giving buckets of money and weapons to corrupt douchenozzles in the third world.  It's better in a lot of ways for them, their corrupt leaders can more freely flaunt their wealth in front of the plebs now.  It was rather embarrassing when they did that in 1979.

Russia had mostly cordial relations with Ukraine prior to about 2008. Relations have only significantly deteriorated since then, when American officials proposed bringing the Ukraine into the fold of the NATO member states, which of course Russia adamantly opposes. Do you not think that NATO expansion has done a great deal to exacerbate tensions with Russia? Do you not think that Putin is more apt to describe himself as feeling cornered and isolated as a result of American policy towards the Russians?

[All Along The Watchtower]

It should be protected, at the very least.

[dead0man]

Russia had mostly cordial relations with Ukraine prior to about 2008.  Relations have only significantly deteriorated since then,

that will happen when Russia gets caught rigging your elections, right?  That should significantly deteriorate relations I would think.  Do you disagree?  'cause that would be a weird argument to have.

when American officials proposed bringing the Ukraine into the fold of the NATO member states,

too bad we didn't.  Ukraine would still be whole if we had.  Same with Georgia.  Which is why I favor expansion.

which of course Russia adamantly opposes.

of course they do, the bully always hates getting resistance

Do you not think that NATO expansion has done a great deal to exacerbate tensions with Russia?

it's not helped, but that doesn't mean Russia would have been content had it been shut down.  There is zero evidence of that.

Do you not think that Putin is more apt to describe himself as feeling cornered and isolated as a result of American policy towards the Russians?

probably, but again, I don't care if bullies feel cornered and isolated.  In fact, I think they should be cornered, isolated and then put down like dogs if they don't play ball.

[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.

[Big Abraham]

Russia had mostly cordial relations with Ukraine prior to about 2008.  Relations have only significantly deteriorated since then,

that will happen when Russia gets caught rigging your elections, right?  That should significantly deteriorate relations I would think.  Do you disagree?  'cause that would be a weird argument to have.

There is absolutely no evidence for that. Thousands of international observers monitored the 2010 election and found no evidence of rigging or electoral fraud, and the OSCE called the election transparent and honest. At any rate, the deterioration of relations occurred before Yanukovych was elected.

when American officials proposed bringing the Ukraine into the fold of the NATO member states,

too bad we didn't.  Ukraine would still be whole if we had.  Same with Georgia.  Which is why I favor expansion.

You're willing to risk an all-out war with Russia just so you can augment your holy military alliance? That's pretty foolish.

Also, Georgia is still "whole". Sure, the ethnic Georgians were expelled from South Ossetia, and Russian military bases were established there, but neither South Ossetia nor Abkhazia were formally annexed by Russia in the same way that the Crimea was.

which of course Russia adamantly opposes.

of course they do, the bully always hates getting resistance

The lack of self-awareness is astounding.

Do you not think that NATO expansion has done a great deal to exacerbate tensions with Russia?

it's not helped, but that doesn't mean Russia would have been content had it been shut down.  There is zero evidence of that.

Like I said, relations had been more or less cordial before the contentious issue of NATO expansion, which, as I've pointed out elsewhere, goes against an assurance made by the United States that NATO would not move eastward.

Do you not think that Putin is more apt to describe himself as feeling cornered and isolated as a result of American policy towards the Russians?

probably, but again, I don't care if bullies feel cornered and isolated.  In fact, I think they should be cornered, isolated and then put down like dogs if they don't play ball.

I hear rhetoric like this all the time coming from hawks like yourself in the media and the political sphere, and they're usually the same people who have the audacity to turn around and criticise Russia for deteriorating relations with the West. If you're advocating for Russia being "cornered, isolated, and then put down like dogs", don't be surprised when the Russians push back.

[BenBurch]

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.

[dead0man]

There is absolutely no evidence for that. Thousands of international observers monitored the 2010 election and found no evidence of rigging or electoral fraud, and the OSCE called the election transparent and honest. At any rate, the deterioration of relations occurred before Yanukovych was elected.

indeed, which is why I was referring to 2004

You're willing to risk an all-out war with Russia just so you can augment your holy military alliance? That's pretty foolish.

Russia is going to start a war it can't possibly win because they got surrounded by liberal democracies?  That's a million times more foolish.

Also, Georgia is still "whole". Sure, the ethnic Georgians were expelled from South Ossetia, and Russian military bases were established there, but neither South Ossetia nor Abkhazia were formally annexed by Russia in the same way that the Crimea was.

did that spinning make you dizzy?  "Just because we've taken over part of your country, ethnically cleansed it, administrate it, won't let you come here, we haven't actually announced it publicly yet, so that makes it totally yours!"  That's crazy man.

Like I said, relations had been more or less cordial before the contentious issue of NATO expansion, which, as I've pointed out elsewhere, goes against an assurance made by the United States that NATO would not move eastward.

non-expansion of NATO was talked about, it was never part of any deal.  They lost, they were not in a very good position to make deals, they should be thankful we let them keep as much control as we did.  If the shoes were switched I wouldn't imagine their leaders would have been as understanding.

I hear rhetoric like this all the time coming from hawks like yourself in the media and the political sphere, and they're usually the same people who have the audacity to turn around and criticise Russia for deteriorating relations with the West. If you're advocating for Russia being "cornered, isolated, and then put down like dogs", don't be surprised when the Russians push back.

all they have to do is stop being douche bags, it's not hard.

[BenBurch]

Even on the terms proscribed by the architects of American imperialism, the usefulness of NATO ceased to exist after 1991. NATO's supposed original purpose, to deter the West from a Warsaw Pact invasion, had been fulfilled. Since then, NATO has become nothing more than the military arm of American regime change in the far-flung corners of the world, and in Europe it has served only to resuscitate the very issue it claimed victory over: Russian aggression.

wait wait wait...are you really suggesting Russia wouldn't have invaded Georgia and Ukraine if NATO was NOT around?  You know that's goofy right?  I'm guessing you'd be ok with Russia in control of the Baltics again too.  Well I wouldn't be, the people it Latvia wouldn't be and I know Kal ain't ok with that either.  The Soviet Union was not properly defeated.  They reorganized, turned a few ideological nobs a little and then returned to being what they were before, with a slightly lighter load by letting the PRC take the lead in giving buckets of money and weapons to corrupt douchenozzles in the third world.  It's better in a lot of ways for them, their corrupt leaders can more freely flaunt their wealth in front of the plebs now.  It was rather embarrassing when they did that in 1979.

Russia had mostly cordial relations with Ukraine prior to about 2008. Relations have only significantly deteriorated since then, when American officials proposed bringing the Ukraine into the fold of the NATO member states, which of course Russia adamantly opposes. Do you not think that NATO expansion has done a great deal to exacerbate tensions with Russia? Do you not think that Putin is more apt to describe himself as feeling cornered and isolated as a result of American policy towards the Russians?

You are absolutely right.  But you forget, the damn imperialists (and that's what it is, imperialism) run this country, Trump aside.  All in the name of "spreading freedom", which alienates the rest of the world.  I honestly wonder how much happier the world would be with America if our first instinct wasn't to invade...

[Karpatsky]

Even on the terms proscribed by the architects of American imperialism, the usefulness of NATO ceased to exist after 1991. NATO's supposed original purpose, to deter the West from a Warsaw Pact invasion, had been fulfilled. Since then, NATO has become nothing more than the military arm of American regime change in the far-flung corners of the world, and in Europe it has served only to resuscitate the very issue it claimed victory over: Russian aggression.

wait wait wait...are you really suggesting Russia wouldn't have invaded Georgia and Ukraine if NATO was NOT around?  You know that's goofy right?  I'm guessing you'd be ok with Russia in control of the Baltics again too.  Well I wouldn't be, the people it Latvia wouldn't be and I know Kal ain't ok with that either.  The Soviet Union was not properly defeated.  They reorganized, turned a few ideological nobs a little and then returned to being what they were before, with a slightly lighter load by letting the PRC take the lead in giving buckets of money and weapons to corrupt douchenozzles in the third world.  It's better in a lot of ways for them, their corrupt leaders can more freely flaunt their wealth in front of the plebs now.  It was rather embarrassing when they did that in 1979.

Russia had mostly cordial relations with Ukraine prior to about 2008. Relations have only significantly deteriorated since then, when American officials proposed bringing the Ukraine into the fold of the NATO member states, which of course Russia adamantly opposes. Do you not think that NATO expansion has done a great deal to exacerbate tensions with Russia? Do you not think that Putin is more apt to describe himself as feeling cornered and isolated as a result of American policy towards the Russians?

You are absolutely right.  But you forget, the damn imperialists (and that's what it is, imperialism) run this country, Trump aside.  All in the name of "spreading freedom", which alienates the rest of the world.  I honestly wonder how much happier the world would be with America if our first instinct wasn't to invade...

You are both absolutely incorrect. To start with, depending on how you define it, the Russian government had 'mostly cordial' relations with the Ukrainian government until 2004 or 2014, when in both cases the Ukrainian people pushed back against Russian economic and political influence propping up corrupt and antidemocratic forces. In the first case, they attempted to control Ukraine through manipulation of gas flows, and in the second, they directly intervened with illegitimate military force.  I would note that the United States has not invaded any NATO country bordering Russia; where these nations associate with the West, they do so out of reasonable balancing against Russian imperial attitudes towards these nations.

Second, you put 'spreading freedom' in quotes, but that is exactly what allowing democratic nations to cement their security towards collective means is. If you travel in (or just read about, really) Russia or Belarus and compare it to Ukraine and Georgia, the latter have much greater freedom of expression, stronger civil society, greater rule of law, and broader economic liberties. If this 'alienates' the elites of autocratic regimes, why should anyone care? Unless one thinks Russia is going to unilaterally pick a fight with NATO, there is no reasonable reason to believe locking in more free nations behind collective defense would increase the chance of world war. To hit the 'but NATO said they wouldn't move East' thing - first of all, this was a 'promise' made by an individual policymaker who left office in 1992, not by 'the United States'. Second, it was made to the leader of the Soviet Union, not to a Russian leader and certainly not to 'Russia'.

One last thing - can we stop taking seriously the idea that the Russian government was sitting pretty and happy in its 1991 borders before big bad NATO came to bully it? There's a reason public support for NATO accession was so high in Eastern European countries in the early 2000s. Moscow has since the fall of the Soviet Union considered itself to have a right to reoccupy what it deems the 'near abroad', and have been working towards that goal from the very start. Russian troops were active in the secession of Transnistria from Moldova starting in 1992; in the same year the Russian parliament declared null the 1954 administrative transfer of Crimea, effectively claiming sovereignty over the peninsula; Russian troops were also active on Georgian territory as early as 1993. Yeltsin, to his credit, tried to fight these tendencies, but Putin encouraged them from the very start of his term.