Are permanent alliances in America's interests?

[Stevicus]

One of the core drivers behind NATO was that it made the European nations more dependent on America.

By acting as guarantor of their security, the US disincentivised European defence spending allowing them cheap security in exchange for ceding most of their ability to act independently of America.

When Trump accuses the Europeans of 'not pulling their weight' it is correct, although he doesn't mention that this is what America had always intended.

It's what America always intended? I've never heard any US politician say that. I think Americans generally accepted that Europe was in a tight spot during and immediately after WW2, so we were in a better position due to a more fortunate geographical position. But after Europe recovered, there was really no reason for that kind of relationship to continue. We can still be friends, allies, and trading partners, but the militarization may not be necessary anymore.

 

[Augustus]

It's what America always intended? I've never heard any US politician say that.I think Americans generally accepted that Europe was in a tight spot during and immediately after WW2, so we were in a better position due to a more fortunate geographical position.

Have to go back to Dean Acheson, George Marshall, etc. and US strategy post-WW2.

 

[sun rise]

National governments should be expected to act in the interests of their people.

I'm tempted to invoke Godwin's Law at this point.

 

[Shad]

NATO didn't prevent Russian actions in Ukraine, Crimea, or Georgia.

None were members.

I don't even see that Russia is "freaking out," nor do I see any indication that the Russians want to take action which NATO is somehow (according to you) preventing.

Go look what reaction when Poland joined until now.

Russia's former allies are become US allies.

I also wouldn't characterize their actions as "land grabs," since it's more a matter of tying up loose ends which should have been tied up when the Soviet Union broke up. I don't see that NATO has any real business interfering in that, since it doesn't threaten any NATO country. Ukraine and Georgia are not NATO members.

Crimea and Georgia were land grabs. Russia is not the successor to the USSR. It has no rights over either nation

That doesn't answer the question.

It was part informational.

Is it reasonable for Russia, a nation which has been invaded countless times in its history, to feel threatened by a coalition of nations all unified by a military pact which was originally formed to target Russia?

Targeted against the USSR and Warsaw pact. Why would Russia feel threatened by a defensive alliance unless it undermined their own goals.

Sure, talk is cheap, and it's easy to say that it's "a defensive alliance," but that's what they all say.

It is in the treaty. Any nation in NATO can refuse to take part in any war which is one of aggression

Are the Russians just supposed to take our word for it?

Doesn't matter what Russia accepts.

If the shoe was on the other foot, if the Chinese or the Russians headed up an alliance of Latin American countries and were all lined up against us, wouldn't we feel threatened, even if they said it was "a defensive alliance"?

Unrealistic scenario as neither have projection power

Sure, but there would still be major discussions. I don't think they would attack a NATO member. But my point is, nations can still communicate and respond to aggression whether they're part of a permanent alliance or not. The alliance can be formed for just that occasion and then dissolved.

We are not talking about NATO then

The countries of NATO are modern, advanced, and industrialized. The combined populations of just Germany, France, and the UK would be over 200 million, far greater than the Russian population. They are more than capable of building more tanks and other munitions, and they could raise an army much bigger than anything the Russians could match. Theoretically, they could do that.

That only happens if Russia does not attack resulting in the Phony War from WW2. It would take years for those nations to create a force that can stop the current Russian military

China, of course, could field a much larger army, but they're also much farther away.

China has no force projection power.

But my point was that, apart from Russia or China, we don't really need a "NATO" to deal with countries like Iraq, Somalia, Libya, etc.

None involved NATO itself as a treaty action

True, it wasn't NATO directly, although it does tie in to our overall alliance system. It also relates to a certain predilection of our political and military leadership to be overly concerned with what things "look like."

Sure.

The strange thing about the US going "rogue" was that Iraq was never really much of a direct threat to US soil. Our allies may have felt threatened, but even then, Iraq was pretty well bottled up after 1991.

Iraq 2 was about cleaning up Reagan and Bush Sr. mess

Okay, then the question becomes, should the US leave the alliance? Does the alliance have any reason to exist at all?

The US still benefits as do other members.

To do what? To have border disputes? Should we get involved in every border dispute?

Those are not border disputes.

I'm not saying that any of these world governments in question are a bunch of choir boys, but each government and nation has its own particular point of view. They see us a certain way, and we see them a certain way.

Sure.

You seem to be suggesting that, without the unity of NATO or the military might of the U.S., these "few members with the power and the will" would do...what?

My point was outside a few NATO members like the US and UK most nations would do nothing unless it directly impact them.

Would they turn savage?

Granted, these are not nice people. After all, they're politicians. They are what they are. But are they complete maniacs? I doubt it.

I never said anyone would go savage but merely a military threat that exists would no longer exist

For one thing, no one can really do that much due to so many countries having the nuclear option. That, just by itself, is enough to keep most of us "honest," so to speak.

A nation has to have the will to use it. Also given denuclearization how long do you think nations will remain nuclear powers

As for Ukraine and Crimea, it's a bad situation, but it's not a problem that we, in America, are presently disposed to resolve.

Ukraine was pushing towards membership in both NATO and the EU. Both organizations have interest in helping Ukraine.

It's really a matter for the Ukrainians and Russians to settle between themselves.

Russia isn't interested.

We don't want them interfering in our elections, so maybe we should think about leaving them alone, too. Let them solve it.

Ukraine requested help. Too bad for Russia.

Yes, but all of that implies that there's some dangerous "other" which needs to be undermined by the existence of an alliance.

China and Russia fit that description.

The very fact that those Warsaw Pact members were able to flip to NATO at all was confirmation that the whole reason for having that alliance in the first place was because Russia was considered some villainous bad guy.

Yes given the fact those nations were under control of Russia....

But then, just out of the blue, Russia stopped being that.

No it didn't.

The danger was over, the Cold War was over. The communists were drummed out of power and a new era was beginning - or so we all thought. There was nothing left to "undermine," or at least no reason to do so at that point.

China and Russia can still be undermined and it has worked for 20 years at least in the case with Russia.

Well, as I mentioned above, the nuclear option keeps everyone honest and within some measure of reasonable restraint.

Again a will to use it combined with denuclearization makes that questionable

It doesn't turn them into nice guys, but at least we don't see leaders going hog wild invading country after country. Because no one is really that crazy.

Famous last words.

 

[Estro Felino]

It's what America always intended? I've never heard any US politician say that. I think Americans generally accepted that Europe was in a tight spot during and immediately after WW2, so we were in a better position due to a more fortunate geographical position. But after Europe recovered, there was really no reason for that kind of relationship to continue. We can still be friends, allies, and trading partners, but the militarization may not be necessary anymore.

Europe is at peace since 1945...
Communism ended in 1989...
Is NATO still useful?

The ideological drift is bigger and bigger in the Mediterranean Area, and it turns out Russia is interested in taking control of that area, through its political alliance with Italy....to protect Europe from the threat of ....

 

[Stevicus]

I'm tempted to invoke Godwin's Law at this point.

I was thinking more of what the U.S. government has done in our interests. It's okay for us to pursue and protect our interests, but when other countries do it, it's a horrible thing.

 

[Stevicus]

None were members.

I didn't say they were.

Go look what reaction when Poland joined until now.

Russia's former allies are become US allies.

Once the Warsaw Pact was dissolved and Russia was no longer communist, the Cold War was over. There was no longer any threat to Poland, so there was no reason for them to join NATO, nor any reason for NATO to exist. The fact that we kept NATO intact (and even expanded it) is, in and of itself, a provocative and hostile act.

But still, I don't think Russia ever "freaked out" about it. At least not anywhere near how much our government freaked out about Crimea.

Crimea and Georgia were land grabs. Russia is not the successor to the USSR. It has no rights over either nation

That's not your call to make. You don't get to decide whose land belongs to whom. These are complex matters which have to be resolved by the countries involved. Crimea was never historically Ukrainian territory anyway. It was a holdover from the Tatar Yoke, and there are still Crimean Tatars living there. The Turks also ruled it for a while. Administratively, it was put under the Ukrainian SSR during the Soviet period, but that doesn't make it automatically theirs. Also, Ukrainian territory was smaller during the Tsarist period.

You're correct that Russia is not the successor to the USSR, but Russia is the successor to Russia.

Historically, the land known as Russia actually began around Kiev, when it was called Kievan Rus. "Ukraine" didn't even exist; there was no "Ukraine." These were Russians. The very word "Ukraine" was derived from the Russian phrase "u kraina" which literally means "on the edge" or "on the frontier." However, the territory had been overrun and occupied by others, namely Turks, Poles, Lithuanians, so it wasn't always in Russian hands.

Not sure what "land grab" you're referring to in Georgia. If you're talking about Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Russia considers those territories to be independent states, not part of Russia or Georgia. (How can they grab land which they themselves say is not theirs?) The people living there are not ethnically Georgian, and it's questionable whether Georgia has the right to rule over them. However, the remaining part of Georgia has remained intact and independent.

Targeted against the USSR and Warsaw pact. Why would Russia feel threatened by a defensive alliance unless it undermined their own goals.

Why would the U.S. or the other NATO members want to keep that alliance intact after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and the breakup of the Soviet Union? Why would they still feel threatened by Russia, when it was clearly obvious that they were no longer any kind of threat at all?

The very fact that it was kept intact under those conditions clearly demonstrates provocative behavior and open hostility. Any country would feel threatened under similar circumstances.

Look at how much our government freaked out when Russia put missiles in Cuba. Even though they were there for strictly defensive reasons, we still felt threatened. See how it works?

It is in the treaty. Any nation in NATO can refuse to take part in any war which is one of aggression

Yes, just as they can be an aggressor yet cite some phony pretext and claim that it's solely for defense. It's been done many times before.

But let me guess: You're going to tell me that NATO is run by a bunch of angels and choir boys who would never lie or do anything wrong, right?

Doesn't matter what Russia accepts.

Well, it may not matter to you, but those of us who don't want another Cold War might consider listening to the other side for once. This is part of the problem today. Nobody even cares or wants to hear the other side's point of view. This kind of knee-jerk "I'm right, you're wrong" way of thinking is counterproductive. You need to learn to be more open-minded and receptive to alternate ways of looking at the world.

Unrealistic scenario as neither have projection power

Are you so certain of that?

We are not talking about NATO then

No, but does that matter?

That only happens if Russia does not attack resulting in the Phony War from WW2. It would take years for those nations to create a force that can stop the current Russian military

That's assuming they would even need to stop the current Russian military.

I heard all this during the Cold War. The classic invasion scenario which pit the mighty USSR ground forces against the paltry, undermanned, underequipped NATO force (which would then be forced to use nukes to stave off the Soviet advance). That's what we would hear all the time, especially when the war hawks were pushing for a bigger defense budget.

There was always this constant fear that the Soviets could attack out of the blue at any time.

But they never did. Why would they do so now (even assuming that they could do it)?

China has no force projection power.

That could change in the years to come.

None involved NATO itself as a treaty action

Then we don't need NATO. Thanks for proving my point.

Sure.

Iraq 2 was about cleaning up Reagan and Bush Sr. mess

Yeah, but all it really did was make a bigger mess. Like father, like son.

The US still benefits as do other members.

In terms of a cost-benefit analysis, I'd like to see the math. We do spend a lot of money on this.

Those are not border disputes.

Oh yes, they are.

My point was outside a few NATO members like the US and UK most nations would do nothing unless it directly impact them.

That seems pretty normal behavior for a national government. It would be nice if our own government would follow that philosophy. We would be a lot better off today if we had.

And before you say it, that's not "isolationism" either. No one denies that there are villains and rogue elements in the world today - just as it's always been. But there is no rule that we have to unilaterally deal with each and every one of them. There's no special responsibility for America or its people to get involved in every hot spot all over the planet.

The major powers, such as China and Russia, while they may have done some questionable things, it's clear that they've been mostly restrained in terms of outright hostility. If you've noticed, Taiwan is still independent, and so is South Korea. You speak of Crimea and Georgia, but there are two sides to every dispute - and besides all else, these are pretty minor things in the grand scheme of things. Let's not blow it out of proportion like it's Hitler invading Poland or anything so outlandish as that.

The bottom line is, while there may be a few notable exceptions, the major powers have been restrained, and it appears extremely unlikely that they would ever engage in the kind of naked aggression everyone in the West seems so paranoid about. If anything, they have more of a reason to fear us than we do of them, since we have been historically far more aggressive in the pursuit of our national interests, both in North America and overseas.

So, all that's left as far as any kind of "threats" to global stability is the small fry. The tinpot dictators and the ragtag terrorist leaders.

And the only reason they're any kind of threat at all is because the major powers can't seem to agree. That's why I think the best thing for America's interests now is to try to bury the hatchet with Russia and China, and work with them in concert to mop up these tinpot dictators and ragtag terrorist leaders. We could actually do some good and make the world safer by cooperating with them and joining hands as responsible world leaders.

I never said anyone would go savage but merely a military threat that exists would no longer exist

Well, the military threat will always exist. As long as countries can build weapons and other military machines, train and equip troops, etc., then there will always be military threats.

A nation has to have the will to use it. Also given denuclearization how long do you think nations will remain nuclear powers

The nuclear powers reduced their stockpiles, but did not eliminate them entirely. And of course, they still have the technology and resources to build more if they wish. But I think they're also working on missile defense systems. The US withdrew from the ABM Treaty.

Ukraine was pushing towards membership in both NATO and the EU. Both organizations have interest in helping Ukraine.

It's easy to see why the Russians would balk at that.

Russia isn't interested.

It appears that they are quite interested in the situation.

Ukraine requested help. Too bad for Russia.

So, you want to go to war with Russia that badly, do you?

China and Russia fit that description.

In your eyes, perhaps.

Yes given the fact those nations were under control of Russia....

Yes, but since Russia changed its ways and turned over a new leaf...

No it didn't.

Did you somehow miss the fall of the Berlin Wall and the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact? They quit the Cold War, they quit being the "Evil Empire." They did so unilaterally, all on their own.

You don't remember all that, or are you just rewriting history as you go along?

China and Russia can still be undermined and it has worked for 20 years at least in the case with Russia.

Hmmm... Given the current world situation, particularly in regards to US relations with both China and Russia, it would appear that this process of "undermining" is backfiring badly on us now. Apparently, we're the ones being undermined at the moment - or at least, that's what a lot of people are saying.

Again a will to use it combined with denuclearization makes that questionable

Questionable? Maybe. Although I will say that I question any worldview which seems to be so heavily traumatized by the existence of Hitler that it implies that there are "Hitlers" everywhere. One often hears people speak of scenarios where Russia and China are secretly plotting to take over America and/or conquer the whole world. Sorry, but I'm just not buying it.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Cracking out my Proverbs (hope nobody is annoyed).

A friend loves at all times, and a brother is born for a time of adversity.
One who has no sense shakes hands in pledge and puts up security for a neighbor. Whoever loves a quarrel loves sin; whoever builds a high gate invites destruction. (Pro 17:17-19 NIV)

This little bit of bronze age wisdom advises several things. 1. Its stupid to put up security for your neighbor's loans. 2. You need friends not just allies. 3. Acting paranoid will bring trouble.

 

[Stevicus]

Europe is at peace since 1945...
Communism ended in 1989...
Is NATO still useful?

The ideological drift is bigger and bigger in the Mediterranean Area, and it turns out Russia is interested in taking control of that area, through its political alliance with Italy....to protect Europe from the threat of ....

Historically, Russia's primary concern has always been defense. It's mostly flat plains and no natural defenses, so there have been quite a number of invading armies which have come into Russia, from both sides. This is something they've always been keenly aware of - and it's something that most Americans can't identify with. That's why many can't really understand why Russia does what it does.

Apart from basic national defense, their two main global aspirations for centuries have been to have access to a year-round ice-free seaport and to retake Constantinople for Orthodoxy. That's why they had so many wars with Turkey, among other reasons. They also expanded eastward into Siberia, as the fall of the Mongol Empire left an immense power vacuum which the Russians capitalized on.

During the Cold War, their national security perceptions saw themselves being literally encircled by the Western alliance system. NATO, CENTO, SEATO, and US allies in Japan and South Korea, right off the very shores of Russia. Then, with their falling out with China, they were put even more on the defensive. The subsequent breakup of the Soviet Union and the resulting reduction in size may have exacerbated this perception.

Historically, the Russians haven't really been that aggressive, at least not compared to certain other countries over the course of history. Most of the territory they gained, they got through backing into it, or through being on the winning side in a defensive war, such as the Napoleonic Wars and WW2. That's not to say that they haven't tried to launch aggressive wars, but they've never really been very good at it. But if you back them into a corner, they will come out swinging, and they will hurt you badly - just like the Germans learned back in the 1940s.

 

[sun rise]

I was thinking more of what the U.S. government has done in our interests. It's okay for us to pursue and protect our interests, but when other countries do it, it's a horrible thing.

We do need to be consistent and not do what we excoriate others for doing.

 

[Estro Felino]

Historically, Russia's primary concern has always been defense. It's mostly flat plains and no natural defenses, so there have been quite a number of invading armies which have come into Russia, from both sides. This is something they've always been keenly aware of - and it's something that most Americans can't identify with. That's why many can't really understand why Russia does what it does.

Apart from basic national defense, their two main global aspirations for centuries have been to have access to a year-round ice-free seaport and to retake Constantinople for Orthodoxy. That's why they had so many wars with Turkey, among other reasons. They also expanded eastward into Siberia, as the fall of the Mongol Empire left an immense power vacuum which the Russians capitalized on.

During the Cold War, their national security perceptions saw themselves being literally encircled by the Western alliance system. NATO, CENTO, SEATO, and US allies in Japan and South Korea, right off the very shores of Russia. Then, with their falling out with China, they were put even more on the defensive. The subsequent breakup of the Soviet Union and the resulting reduction in size may have exacerbated this perception.

Historically, the Russians haven't really been that aggressive, at least not compared to certain other countries over the course of history. Most of the territory they gained, they got through backing into it, or through being on the winning side in a defensive war, such as the Napoleonic Wars and WW2. That's not to say that they haven't tried to launch aggressive wars, but they've never really been very good at it. But if you back them into a corner, they will come out swinging, and they will hurt you badly - just like the Germans learned back in the 1940s.

You do not understand...Stevicus, how grave the situation is.
We are a dying Nation...overwhelmed by a massive non-Christian immigration.

We have to assure Italy remains a Christian Nation, that is, it becomes a protectorate of a great Christian Nation, who won't mind using certain authoritarian manners to re-establish a certain order, and with its inhabitants keeps the ethnic composition Christian.

Russians have already said they want to do that....and recently Putin even signed an agreement in Rome behind closed doors.

 

[Stevicus]

You do not understand...Stevicus, how grave the situation is.
We are a dying Nation...overwhelmed by a massive non-Christian immigration.

We have to assure Italy remains a Christian Nation, that is, it becomes a protectorate of a great Christian Nation, who won't mind using certain authoritarian manners to re-establish a certain order, and with its inhabitants keeps the ethnic composition of the country pure.

Russians have already said they want to do that....and recently Putin even signed an agreement in Rome behind closed doors.

No, I understand what you're saying. There are a lot of Americans with a similar view. I'm not sure that it's to the point yet where we're a dying nation, although I've heard that from all quarters - whether it suggests an economic death, an environmental death, a religious death, or a cultural death.

One thing about embracing authoritarian manners is that it can sometimes exacerbate and even accelerate the very thing you're trying to prevent.

The immigrants coming in to my country and your country are coming mainly for economic reasons. The reason why many people oppose immigration is also related to economics more than anything else.

That's why I believe the best solution to resolving all of these issues from both sides is absolute economic equality. If all the countries in the world were on an equal footing, where everyone had decent, modern, luxury housing, where there was plenty of food, free education and healthcare - and the basic kind of lifestyle one would find in midtown Manhattan or Beverly Hills, then most of the problems of the world would disappear. Everyone should be able to live like that, not just a pitiful few.

In other words, if all these non-Christian immigrants coming to your country were living in mansions and enjoying a luxury lifestyle in their own countries, then they wouldn't come at all.

 

[Estro Felino]

No, I understand what you're saying. There are a lot of Americans with a similar view. I'm not sure that it's to the point yet where we're a dying nation, although I've heard that from all quarters - whether it suggests an economic death, an environmental death, a religious death, or a cultural death.

One thing about embracing authoritarian manners is that it can sometimes exacerbate and even accelerate the very thing you're trying to prevent.

The immigrants coming in to my country and your country are coming mainly for economic reasons. The reason why many people oppose immigration is also related to economics more than anything else.

That's why I believe the best solution to resolving all of these issues from both sides is absolute economic equality. If all the countries in the world were on an equal footing, where everyone had decent, modern, luxury housing, where there was plenty of food, free education and healthcare - and the basic kind of lifestyle one would find in midtown Manhattan or Beverly Hills, then most of the problems of the world would disappear. Everyone should be able to live like that, not just a pitiful few.

In other words, if all these non-Christian immigrants coming to your country were living in mansions and enjoying a luxury lifestyle in their own countries, then they wouldn't come at all.

I totally agree. In fact it is absolutely necessary to help those countries prosper through investments in those countries...Let's not forget our euros, dollars, pounds are worth much much morr in Africa or Asia.

By dying nation I meant demographically...btw

 

[Shad]

I didn't say they were.

Irrelevant as you are talking about action NATO did not take as it can not start wars of aggression. Read the Treaty.

There was no longer any threat to Poland, so there was no reason for them to join NATO, nor any reason for NATO to exist.

Russia has been a threat to Poland for centuries. Poland does consider Russia a threat. NATO is still a valuable alliance to the US.

The fact that we kept NATO intact (and even expanded it) is, in and of itself, a provocative and hostile act.

No it isn't. Sovereign nations can join or create whatever treaties they want.

But still, I don't think Russia ever "freaked out" about it. At least not anywhere near how much our government freaked out about Crimea.

Russia has been whining about NATO for decades.

That's not your call to make. You don't get to decide whose land belongs to whom.

I am not. I am pointing out existing treaties and agreements which determined that which Putin now wants to ignore.

These are complex matters which have to be resolved by the countries involved. Crimea was never historically Ukrainian territory anyway.

Irrelevant. Russia as a socialist republic transferred that territory. Russia isn't resolving anything. It seized the area.

Administratively, it was put under the Ukrainian SSR during the Soviet period, but that doesn't make it automatically theirs. Also, Ukrainian territory was smaller during the Tsarist period.

First Russia transferred it to Ukraine during the USSR era. The dissolution agreement of the USSR accept Ukraine as it was which Russia not only signed but was one of the 3 advocated for it. The other two were Belarus and....... Ukraine

You're correct that Russia is not the successor to the USSR, but Russia is the successor to Russia.

Which legal transferred the area to Ukraine

Historically, the land known as Russia actually began around Kiev, when it was called Kievan Rus.

Irrelevant.

Not sure what "land grab" you're referring to in Georgia.

Russia currently occupies territory of Georgia.

Russia considers those territories to be independent states, not part of Russia or Georgia.

And no other power does. Too bad for Russia.

(How can they grab land which they themselves say is not theirs?)

By occupying it.

The people living there are not ethnically Georgian, and it's questionable whether Georgia has the right to rule over them. However, the remaining part of Georgia has remained intact and independent.

Except for the part Russia carved out right?

Why would the U.S. or the other NATO members want to keep that alliance intact after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and the breakup of the Soviet Union? Why would they still feel threatened by Russia, when it was clearly obvious that they were no longer any kind of threat at all?

As it is a valuable military alliance in general. Russia is still a threat.

The very fact that it was kept intact under those conditions clearly demonstrates provocative behavior and open hostility.

Nope

Any country would feel threatened under similar circumstances.

This is just paranoia from Russia, nothing more.

Look at how much our government freaked out when Russia put missiles in Cuba. Even though they were there for strictly defensive reasons, we still felt threatened. See how it works?

Nukes are not defensive weapons. The nuke in Cuba were to close a first strike and interception range gap compared to Turkey assets

Yes, just as they can be an aggressor yet cite some phony pretext and claim that it's solely for defense. It's been done many times before.

Speculation

But let me guess: You're going to tell me that NATO is run by a bunch of angels and choir boys who would never lie or do anything wrong, right?

Nope

Well, it may not matter to you, but those of us who don't want another Cold War might consider listening to the other side for once.

It wouldn't be another Cold War it would just be isolation of Russia.

This is part of the problem today. Nobody even cares or wants to hear the other side's point of view.

What view is that? I do not mean your opinion.

[quoteYou need to learn to be more open-minded and receptive to alternate ways of looking at the world. [/quote]

Say something of value and I will. So far you are just speculating and claiming how Russia feels without any citation.

Are you so certain of that?

Right now? Yes.

No, but does that matter?

Yes as it the topic

That's assuming they would even need to stop the current Russian military.

Outside of nuke they will need to stop the military.

The classic invasion scenario which pit the mighty USSR ground forces against the paltry, undermanned, underequipped NATO force (which would then be forced to use nukes to stave off the Soviet advance). That's what we would hear all the time, especially when the war hawks were pushing for a bigger defense budget.

Yes as Europe is dangerously exposed.

There was always this constant fear that the Soviets could attack out of the blue at any time.

Which it could

But they never did. Why would they do so now (even assuming that they could do it)?

Territory for one just like Russia is doing now. Russia didn't as the US would nuke Russia.

That could change in the years to come.

Sure. However China is decades behind the US when it comes to the navy which is key in force projection.

Then we don't need NATO. Thanks for proving my point.

Wrong. I corrected you. More so UN requested NATO members to take action which proved my point that not only is NATO needed by it's members but the weak UN needs it too.

Yeah, but all it really did was make a bigger mess. Like father, like son.

It isn't a bigger mess. Iraq isn't killing it's own citizens for arbitrary reasons like Saddam did

[n terms of a cost-benefit analysis, I'd like to see the math. We do spend a lot of money on this.

Military bases and infrastructure are key to force projection

Oh yes, they are.

Nope as Russia had no issues while also acknowledging the legitimacy of those states and territories both in the USSR and post-USSR era.

That seems pretty normal behavior for a national government. It would be nice if our own government would follow that philosophy. We would be a lot better off today if we had.

And if a pig had wings it could fly.

[qupte]No one denies that there are villains and rogue elements in the world today - just as it's always been. But there is no rule that we have to unilaterally deal with each and every one of them. There's no special responsibility for America or its people to get involved in every hot spot all over the planet.[/quote]

The US accepted that mantel as no one else was willing nor capable of doing so. More so the UN and nations call upon the US to fulfill that role. The world needs the US to fulfill that role.

The major powers, such as China and Russia, while they may have done some questionable things, it's clear that they've been mostly restrained in terms of outright hostility.

Open a history book. NK, Hungry revolt to name two.

If you've noticed, Taiwan is still independent, and so is South Korea.

Taiwan had a military alliance with the US. SK has a military alliance and over 30k US soldier in the nation. Both only exist due to the US. SK lost the Korean war within days before UN intervention. Taiwan was going to be invaded.

You speak of Crimea and Georgia, but there are two sides to every dispute - and besides all else, these are pretty minor things in the grand scheme of things. Let's not blow it out of proportion like it's Hitler invading Poland or anything so outlandish as that.

Considering land grabs were the start of Hitler's plan and the lack of resolve by the allies you should consider such acts more seriously including your own response to those acts.

the major powers have been restrained, and it appears extremely unlikely that they would ever engage in the kind of naked aggression everyone in the West seems so paranoid about. If anything, they have more of a reason to fear us than we do of them, since we have been historically far more aggressive in the pursuit of our national interests, both in North America and overseas.

Restrained by the US military when it comes to major nations being protected by the US against action by China and Russia

So, all that's left as far as any kind of "threats" to global stability is the small fry. The tinpot dictators and the ragtag terrorist leaders.

Putin is one of the tinpot dictators. Terrorist are an issue when failed states like Pakistan still have nukes all while their own military has terrorist members and sympathizers.

That's why I think the best thing for America's interests now is to try to bury the hatchet with Russia and China, and work with them in concert to mop up these tinpot dictators and ragtag terrorist leaders. We could actually do some good and make the world safer by cooperating with them and joining hands as responsible world leaders.

Why bury the hatch while Russia is seizing land? Chamberlain? Is that you?

Well, the military threat will always exist. As long as countries can build weapons and other military machines, train and equip troops, etc., then there will always be military threats.

Sure

And of course, they still have the technology and resources to build more if they wish. But I think they're also working on missile defense systems. The US withdrew from the ABM Treaty.

UK is committed to removing it nukes around 2050.

It's easy to see why the Russians would balk at that.

Russia can whine all it wants. Ukraine is a sovereign nation

It appears that they are quite interested in the situation.

Not in resolving it. Instead Russia supplies arms. Yes so very interested in a resolution between the two nations. hah

So, you want to go to war with Russia that badly, do you?

Never said that.

In your eyes, perhaps.

Nope. I look at history and current events. Perhaps you should as well.

Yes, but since Russia changed its ways and turned over a new leaf...

Replacing communism with Putin merely exchanges a fantasy for a dictator.

They quit the Cold War, they quit being the "Evil Empire." They did so unilaterally, all on their own.

Yet now we have Putin invading other nations and claiming other nations are illegitimate.

You don't remember all that, or are you just rewriting history as you go along?

Merely a change in personnel does not make a nation not a threat to other nations.

it would appear that this process of "undermining" is backfiring badly on us now. Apparently, we're the ones being undermined at the moment - or at least, that's what a lot of people are saying.

I disagree as the people that tend to say that are European protected by the US military.

Questionable? but I'm just not buying it.

Never said that. You can believe what you want including ignoring current Russian action.

 

[Stevicus]

Irrelevant as you are talking about action NATO did not take as it can not start wars of aggression. Read the Treaty.

I was just responding to what you were saying. You said in post #14: "Russia is freaking out as NATO prevents it from taking action in other nations as it has done in Georgia, Crimea and Ukraine."

Russia has been a threat to Poland for centuries. Poland does consider Russia a threat. NATO is still a valuable alliance to the US.

Well, if we're going to go back centuries, then it would be more correct to say that Poland and Russia have been threats to each other, going back to at least the Time of Troubles. Poland sided with Napoleon in his invasion of Russia, and because they backed the wrong side, they ended up losing their independence and remained a part of the Russian Empire for over a century. Poland has been a conduit for Western invasions of Russia, so it's easy to see why Poland figures prominently in their national security aspirations.

No it isn't. Sovereign nations can join or create whatever treaties they want.

Sure, but if they do, other sovereign nations have every right to question their motives and intentions in doing so. If they consider it hostile, then they consider it hostile. Just as we would consider a joint defense agreement between the USSR and Cuba to be hostile against the United States. You can't have it both ways, even though you seem to want to.

Russia has been whining about NATO for decades.

"Whining"? If that's the case, then I guess the West has been whining about communism and the USSR for even longer. One can observe a whole lot of "whining" over this, that, or the other thing, but I don't see how it's relevant to this discussion. It appears that you perceive Russia to be emotionally unstable, using terms like "freaking out" and "whining," but it's the use of terms like that which creates misperceptions of Russia and a continually misreading of them which has hampered US policymakers. Part of the problem we've had with Russia is because nobody in the West really understands them or makes any sincere effort to do so.

I am not. I am pointing out existing treaties and agreements which determined that which Putin now wants to ignore.

What existing treaties and agreements are you referring to? You said it yourself above that sovereign nations have every right to enter into treaties and agreements, but by the same token, they're also free to withdraw from those treaties when they are no longer beneficial.

Irrelevant. Russia as a socialist republic transferred that territory. Russia isn't resolving anything. It seized the area.

Well, it was a somewhat chaotic time when the Soviet Union broke up, and it seems patently obvious that things happened too precipitously and without much thought or negotiation. That was under Yeltsin who turned out to be a drunken fool. Since that time, there have been numerous reports from ethnic Russians in the former Soviet Republics about persecution, harassment, and other mistreatment.


As for the boundaries, this map shows the territory of the Ukraine as it was during the Tsarist period. If you ever bothered to study the history of the region, you would know that it's an extremely complicated situation that can't be dismissed with a handwave.

First Russia transferred it to Ukraine during the USSR era. The dissolution agreement of the USSR accept Ukraine as it was which Russia not only signed but was one of the 3 advocated for it. The other two were Belarus and....... Ukraine

Well, the situation has obviously changed since then. It's apparent that the current leader of Russia does not agree with the actions made by his predecessors, since they made decisions which weakened Russia's position.


Besides, it doesn't seem to have threatened anything or really changed anything. We don't hear of any massive opposition from the people in Crimea. There's no uprising that I've seen reported. Everything seems quiet. As I said, they're not really Ukrainians, so whether they're ruled by Ukraine or Russia, it's still being ruled by a foreign power. So, if the people of Crimea are okay with it, what's the problem? As for Ukraine, it seems they're none the worse either, since it's business as usual for them, making deals with Biden and having phone conversations with Trump.

Which legal transferred the area to Ukraine

Well, as I said, the "legalities" have to be worked out through international negotiations. It's really a matter for Ukraine and Russia to resolve, without any outside interference. It's really none of our business.


You said that the Ukrainians asked for our help, but the Russians asked us not to interfere. Should we disregard George Washington's advice and play favorites here? Should we take sides of one against the other? How does that benefit the American people? How does that benefit US national interests?

Irrelevant.

Not really, no. As I keep saying, there is a history here which you can't simply handwave away. This isn't about Putin or so-called "Russian aggression." I don't really like Putin, and it appears he's got some sort of weed up his a**, but it also appears that the more we antagonize Russia, the greater hold on power he will have.

Russia currently occupies territory of Georgia.

No, they're occupying territories which aren't part of Georgia.

And no other power does. Too bad for Russia.

Well, it may be good for the indigenous peoples in those territories who want their independence.


I mean, if the Russians wanted all of Georgia, they could have just taken it. They didn't do that, did they?

By occupying it.

From another point of view, one could say that they "liberated" it and the troops are there to protect their independence.

Except for the part Russia carved out right?

You mean the part that they liberated?

As it is a valuable military alliance in general. Russia is still a threat.

If they're a threat now, it's only because the West was unwilling to establish better relations immediately after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact. The Cold War was over, and a new government had taken power in Russia, a government which was open to democratic ideals and freedom. There was an opportunity for world peace and stability, but instead of pursuing that course, our government chose to take advantage of the situation to expand its power and hegemony even further.

Nope

You say.

This is just paranoia from Russia, nothing more.

I see no basis for your diagnosis of "paranoia," Doctor.

Nukes are not defensive weapons. The nuke in Cuba were to close a first strike and interception range gap compared to Turkey assets

There's no such thing as a "defensive weapon." In any case, we believed that any kind of armed force (nuclear or not) in Cuba was a potential threat to the United States, so we balked about it.


We even balked about Cuba even before there were nukes. The whole Bay of Pigs debacle was what precipitated Cuba appealing to the USSR for help.


They wanted assurances that they weren't going to end up like Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Haiti, the Dominican Republic or any number of other countries which fell under the heel of the US military just because they dared to assert their own sovereignty. (And yet you talk about a few minor incidents and call it "Russian aggression.")

Speculation

No it's historical fact. Do you Remember the Maine? Or perhaps the Gulf of Tonkin incident? Then there was the incident which was used as a pretext for the German invasion of Poland in 1939, when the Nazis staged some phony raid by Polish patriots who took over a radio station and started broadcasting Polish propaganda. Countries can and do such things, as history will attest.

 

[Stevicus]

It wouldn't be another Cold War it would just be isolation of Russia.

You can't assume that. There are other countries which may view the American-led alliance as a threat to their sovereignty and might seek another powerful ally, if Russia is willing. China doesn't seem willing to go that far, although it's hard to say. Nonetheless, China and Russia have had a number of recent joint military exercises. I don't think Russia would be as isolated as you think.

What view is that? I do not mean your opinion.

Well, maybe the Russians have a point of view which should be heard. I'm not talking about just Putin. But you've been cavalierly handwaving and disregarding their position at every turn. You say "too bad for Russia," as if you hold some sort of personal animosity against them as a people, while demonstrating that you don't even care what they think.

Say something of value and I will. So far you are just speculating and claiming how Russia feels without any citation.

What sort of "citation" are you asking for? I don't even think you've refuted any statements of fact I've made; you've simply dismissed them as "irrelevant" or stated that you simply don't care.


I think that you're grossly oversimplifying the whole situation. You're just looking at an imaginary line on a map, totally disinterested and far away, and judging a situation you apparently know very little about and saying "Bad Russia! No vodka for you!"


I'm also not claiming to know how Russia "feels." That statement is rather absurd. But I do know enough about the history of the situation that I can say with some certainty that they're not taking actions just because they want to make some sort of "land grab."


There's also something else I know about the Russians, something that you seem ignorant of: Russians are not Germans. Putin is not Hitler. (Trump isn't Hitler either, although he does have German ancestry.)


I visited Russia back in the 1980s, and one thing that struck me is that even 40 years after the fact, they were still very much living in the shadow of WW2. Considering what they went through during that period, it's understandable that this would still remain as a significant part of their national consciousness and how they view the outside world.


This is also somewhat true in the West, as the historical knowledge of Hitler has strongly influenced US policymakers and our perceptions of the world ever since. (As evidenced by your reference to Chamberlain, which I'll get to shortly.)

Right now? Yes.

I don't think it would take much coaxing for some of the nations of Latin America to fall out of the American fold, if they could get protection from a larger friendly power. Both China and Russia have weighed in on the dispute in Venezuela, and we've already discussed Russia's relations with Cuba. A few more revolutions here and there and a few more images of Latino children in cages, and it's conceivable that a few more Latin American nations could fall into the arms of either China or Russia at this point.


They never really liked us that much to begin with, but we really didn't give them any other choice. With companies like United Fruit using our military as mercenaries, it left quite a bitter taste.


This is a serious vulnerability which should be addressed. For the sake of US national security, perhaps our priorities should change to where our greater focus should be on our own region, rather than worrying so much about what goes on in the Eastern Hemisphere (especially if, as you say, they have no projection power which could truly threaten us). For each country we alienate in Latin America, that's a potential base of operations and staging area for any country that may oppose us, which will certainly give a huge boost to their projection power.


Our priority should be to bolster relations with Latin America, woo them back on side and encourage more of a "good neighbor" relationship rather than the hegemonic relationship which has been toxic and detrimental to our long-term national interests (despite whatever short-term profits it might have made for United Fruit).

Yes as it the topic

The topic isn't solely confined to NATO.

Outside of nuke they will need to stop the military.

Stop them from doing what? Invading? You think they would really invade? And yet, you accuse the Russians of having "paranoia."

Yes as Europe is dangerously exposed.

And they've had more than enough time (along with the national wealth, manpower, and industrial capacity) to build a bigger military force. I doubt that they would really need it (and apparently, it hasn't been much of a priority for them either). They're the ones on the firing line. They're the ones who would be the first victims in any hypothetical Russian invasion of Europe, and if they don't think they need a bigger army, then why should we?


Maybe they don’t believe Russia is as grave a threat as you do. I still recall the massive protests against nuclear proliferation in Europe back in the early 80s. There was a kind of "better red than dead" idea floating around. Even if the Soviets invaded with conventional weapons, the idea was that it was still preferable to using nuclear weapons to defend against it.


I won't say that I agree with that, because I don't. But I just didn't believe the Soviets would ever try it. They had no real reason to do such a thing back then, nor do they have any reason to do so now.

Which it could

Well, I suppose the Moon could fall out of the sky, but that doesn't mean it's going to happen anytime soon.

Territory for one just like Russia is doing now. Russia didn't as the US would nuke Russia.

Russia is the largest country in land area in the world. They were even bigger when they were the USSR. As I said, Russians are not Germans. It was the Germans who were crammed into a small territory with few resources and unable to expand, so they were the ones who made a big thing about "Lebensraum." Don't confuse them with the Russians, as acquiring more land has never been their main concern. (Peter the Great's main goal was to gain an outlet to the sea and a year-round ice-free seaport, which has been a significant focus of their national security aspirations. Then there's the more religious-based ideal of wanting to retake Constantinople for Orthodoxy, which also became a large part of their focus.)


The point is, "territory" doesn't appear to be their goal. They've been invaded so many times, their main focus has always been to protect their own territory while striving to achieve a certain strategic position towards that defensive goal. After WW2 and the world alliance systems started to shape up, the Soviets could clearly see that they were encircled by Western alliances, from Europe to CENTO to SEATO to Japan and South Korea.


The West justified it as "containment," as they had some paranoid delusion that there was such a thing as "Soviet expansionism." It wasn't all biscuits and gravy for the West, either, as we got bogged down in hot wars in Korea and Vietnam. We saw our role as defending territory which we believed the Soviets wanted, but our enemies in both wars were not Russians. We were fighting Chinese, Koreans, and Vietnamese on their own soil – and yet, we want to say that it's the Russians' fault?


I do have to hand it to the McCarthyite propagandists; they're truly remarkable at their craft. But it was BS back then, and it's still BS today.


Another point to raise is that, since the end of the Cold War, a lot of files became declassified, from both Russia and America. It appears that our military and political leaders from that era had grossly overestimated Soviet military capabilities. There was this huge fear of the Big Russian Bear that justified such a massive military build-up on our part, along with a whole host of underhanded deals, covert ops, manipulation of foreign governments, wars by proxy.


One might well wonder if the entire Cold War was just some kind of insane hoax cooked up by the Military-Industrial Complex. I'm not making any definitive claims in that area, but one might well wonder about it.

Sure. However China is decades behind the US when it comes to the navy which is key in force projection.

Projecting their force around the world has not been their priority. They've been focused on their own regional defense. It seems clear that they have no desire to project their power beyond their region, but they are clearly more than capable of dominating in their own region.

Wrong. I corrected you. More so UN requested NATO members to take action which proved my point that not only is NATO needed by it's members but the weak UN needs it too.

The same thing could have been accomplished without NATO. Ultimately, it's not a request to NATO; it's a request to America. Let's face it, that's what it is. Anything that "NATO" has done, America could have done unilaterally and all on its own. If they're responding to an official UN request and have full approval of the UN Security Council, then so much the better. At least that gives us some measure of legitimacy.


The existence of NATO is justified only if you believe the other member states are nothing more than satellites of America which exist solely to advance US interests. (And I've heard more than a few Europeans and even some Canadians openly express resentment against the US along those lines.)

It isn't a bigger mess. Iraq isn't killing it's own citizens for arbitrary reasons like Saddam did

Perhaps not, but they're killing each other. It was a contributory factor in the creation of ISIS, which was indeed a big mess and one they're still trying to clean up. And there's no reason not to expect more messes in the years to come.

Military bases and infrastructure are key to force projection

To what purpose? To whose benefit? Where is the benefit to the average American? What's in it for us? What do we get out of it, in terms of tangible net assets?


Do you have anything to back this up other than vague, idle, unsupported speculation about some possible "boogieman" we need to defend ourselves against?

Nope as Russia had no issues while also acknowledging the legitimacy of those states and territories both in the USSR and post-USSR era.

Well, it appears that the situation has changed. But either way, they're still border disputes.

 

[Stevicus]

And if a pig had wings it could fly.

I'm just saying that if we had a government which operated in a more reasonable and normal fashion, without becoming deluded with ideas about "American Exceptionalism" or some God-given role to be the world's crusader for truth, justice, and the American Way, we probably would have far fewer problems to deal with today. For one thing, we would have saved an enormous amount of money, if nothing else. Not to mention human lives, for those who actually care about things like that.


I honestly believe that if we had behaved more reasonably at the end of WW2, the Soviets would not have had a need to keep a permanent occupation force in Eastern Europe, and those countries could have been spared the tribulations of living behind the Iron Curtain. I'm not saying the Soviets were completely in the right, and some of their actions were indefensible. But they were just as worried about an attack from the West as we were worried about them, so they used those states as a buffer zone for their own defense.


If we had behaved more reasonably, then they would have behaved more reasonably. They weren't Hitler. They weren't Nazis. They weren't Germans.


I'm not saying that they're saints. I would concede that there's a certain "dark side" to Russia just as there's a "dark side" to America. In my experience, Russians also tend to look at America solely based on its "dark side," without much attention to the "good side." But for both countries, their "dark sides" are not anything like the German "dark side," which is totally different kettle of fish. You can't ascribe the qualities of Nazi Germans to the Russians, even if they may be Communist or authoritarian. You can't predict or project their possible actions based on something Hitler did 80 years ago.

The US accepted that mantel as no one else was willing nor capable of doing so. More so the UN and nations call upon the US to fulfill that role. The world needs the US to fulfill that role.

Well, as far as what mantel the US accepted, or what it accepts now, that's really up to the American people to decide. That's why it's fair game for discussion and why it's a valid issue in U.S. politics. A lot of Americans aren't too keen on this role we've accepted, and it's a fair question to ask why so much of the world is in such utter turmoil and why so many other nations are too weak or wishy-washy to do anything about it.


So, we, the American people, are told that the world "needs us," and this is our God-given duty and responsibility. Sure, we the people have a choice to not get involved, but it's like a gallant knight seeing a damsel in distress. Does he just ride away and leave her to her fate? Of course not, he goes riding in and saves her.


That's how a lot of Americans see themselves and the role of America in the world, and we've really got to stop this way of looking at things.


At the very least, we should pick our battles more carefully.

Open a history book. NK, Hungry revolt to name two.

I already knew about those events. Russia is not North Korea, but if you want to bring that up, we practically gave North Korea to the Russians anyway, in exchange for their promise to declare war on the Japanese after the defeat of Germany. Kind of a raw deal for the Koreans, but both Russia and America are equally to blame for that wrongful injustice done to the Korean nation. The damage appears irreversible.


But in any case, you're not refuting my point that they were still "mostly restrained." That doesn't necessarily exclude minor incidents, but even then, they still kept it within reasonable boundaries. Neither event directly threatened the United States.

Taiwan had a military alliance with the US. SK has a military alliance and over 30k US soldier in the nation. Both only exist due to the US. SK lost the Korean war within days before UN intervention. Taiwan was going to be invaded.

They still could have invaded if they wanted to.

Considering land grabs were the start of Hitler's plan and the lack of resolve by the allies you should consider such acts more seriously including your own response to those acts.

As I said, they're not Germans, and it's fallacious, myopic, and imprudent to respond to them as if they are.

Restrained by the US military when it comes to major nations being protected by the US against action by China and Russia

It wasn't all like that. It was also coupled with cooperation, along with the memory of our alliance with them during WW2. If nothing else, it proved that we could work with them and at least communicate on some rational level. We were able to work out our differences to some degree, we had détente, along with attempts to make treaties to reduce nuclear arms.


In contrast, Hitler wasn't restrained by the US military – or anyone else's military either. He didn't care, he just went rolling over anyone he could. But that's Hitler, that's not the Russians.


We were restrained, too. We couldn't invade China during the Korean War, as much as MacArthur wanted to. We couldn't invade Cuba, at least not openly. We couldn't invade North Vietnam. We still can't do much about North Korea.


And as much as Iran is a thorn in our side, we can't do much about that, since they could potentially get help from the Russians.

Putin is one of the tinpot dictators. Terrorist are an issue when failed states like Pakistan still have nukes all while their own military has terrorist members and sympathizers.

Putin may be many things, but he's not a tinpot dictator. The key difference is that he hasn't been propped up or installed by some external power.



I don't know what Pakistan has to do with it, but they've been a US ally for decades. If that's turning out to be a problem for us now, then all I can say is that it's just one of the many pitfalls of having alliances with too many strange bedfellows.


You know, a lot of these countries didn't really have the ability to make nukes or any modern weapons once upon a time. Compared to the weapons of the Western nations which dominated and colonized them back in the 18th and 19th centuries, their weapons were quite primitive. They didn't stand a chance against the West. But because we did that, now our weapons became their weapons.

Why bury the hatch while Russia is seizing land? Chamberlain? Is that you?

The only thing Chamberlain was buy time. It gave them an extra year to build up their armaments. They were not prepared to fight the Germans in 1938. They weren't really that prepared in 1939, either. They had a Phony War from 1939-40, so even the fact that they declared war didn't really seem to frighten the Germans all that much.


Of course, circumstances are different today, but we have to ask ourselves whether we are militarily and psychological prepared for an all-out world war as we go around saber-rattling with China and Russia in a somewhat reckless and rash manner? Do Americans have the stomach for battles like Stalingrad? These are the questions we should be asking ourselves before we go rushing headlong on some crusade to save Crimea. I think that would be an incredibly foolhardy venture which we should carefully consider before doing.

UK is committed to removing it nukes around 2050.

Any chance they could change their minds? I think Trump has talked about wanting to build more nukes.

Russia can whine all it wants. Ukraine is a sovereign nation

It's not about Russian whining or Ukraine's sovereignty, at least not from our point of view. From our standpoint, we have to ask ourselves what we're willing to do and how far we're willing to go. We can either go to war with them, or we can talk to them and negotiate. If we're going to talk to them and try to persuade them to change their point of view, then we have to know what it is first. So, it might involve listening to some of their "whining," however painful that may be for your ears.

Not in resolving it. Instead Russia supplies arms. Yes so very interested in a resolution between the two nations. Hah

We supply arms, too. We're both guilty of that particular sin, so neither has any room to talk in throwing stones in this regard.

Never said that.

So, what are you advocating?

Nope. I look at history and current events. Perhaps you should as well.

I do, but I look at the actual events without speculating or projecting what other nations might do without any basis whatsoever.

Replacing communism with Putin merely exchanges a fantasy for a dictator.

It wasn't a dictatorship at first. I don't think Yeltsin was that much of a dictator. There was a great deal of chaos and crime in Russia for many years after the end of the Cold War. Someone had to restore order, and Yeltsin wasn't it.

Yet now we have Putin invading other nations and claiming other nations are illegitimate.

Well, we've all done that at one point or another. That's just the way the world works, and I don't think that will ever change.

Merely a change in personnel does not make a nation not a threat to other nations.

It was a complete change in government and the entire structure of the nation. It was not merely a change in personnel. The only thing that made them a threat before was that they were communist. Once they stopped being that, then the entire basis for perceiving them as a threat was no longer relevant.

I disagree as the people that tend to say that are European protected by the US military.

You mean the same people who, according to you, are incapable of protecting themselves?


How do they know the US can protect them? Our military power may be formidable, but it's not inexhaustible. If we had to face China and Russia on two fronts, we might not win.

Never said that. You can believe what you want including ignoring current Russian action.

I'm not ignoring it at all. I'm just looking at it and taking it as it is. They took some land, and that may be a bad thing, but I don't see it as any more than just that. You're the one building it up into a prelude to some death struggle between East and West. You're seeing things that aren't there, and you're chiding me for "ignoring" things that aren't there.

 

[Shad]

I was just responding to what you were saying. You said in post #14: "Russia is freaking out as NATO prevents it from taking action in other nations as it has done in Georgia, Crimea and Ukraine."

You too the point far to literally.

Well, if we're going to go back centuries

Arbitrary cut off point. Now keep doing more research. Russia's west will always be vulnerable due to geography.

Sure, but if they do, other sovereign nations have every right to question their motives and intentions in doing so. If they consider it hostile, then they consider it hostile. Just as we would consider a joint defense agreement between the USSR and Cuba to be hostile against the United States. You can't have it both ways, even though you seem to want to.

You want to turn a non-hostile act into a hostile one. I'm not as I am using recent history.

"Whining"? If that's the case, then I guess the West has been whining about communism and the USSR for even longer.

The West had cause. Russia doesn't.

What existing treaties and agreements are you referring to? You said it yourself above that sovereign nations have every right to enter into treaties and agreements, but by the same token, they're also free to withdraw from those treaties when they are no longer beneficial.

Dissolution of the USSR which recognized Ukraine's new government as legitimate.

Well, it was a somewhat chaotic time when the Soviet Union broke up, and it seems patently obvious that things happened too precipitously and without much thought or negotiation. That was under Yeltsin who turned out to be a drunken fool. Since that time, there have been numerous reports from ethnic Russians in the former Soviet Republics about persecution, harassment, and other mistreatment.

None of which give Russia a right to do anything.

As for the boundaries, this map shows the territory of the Ukraine as it was during the Tsarist period. If you ever bothered to study the history of the region, you would know that it's an extremely complicated situation that can't be dismissed with a handwave.

Which was proceeded by USSR acts. Another arbitrary cut off point while ignoring modern history. Russia acknowledge Ukraine as legitimate for decades until Putin changed his mind. I am hand waving that away.

Well, the situation has obviously changed since then. It's apparent that the current leader of Russia does not agree with the actions made by his predecessors, since they made decisions which weakened Russia's position.

So?

Besides, it doesn't seem to have threatened anything or really changed anything. We don't hear of any massive opposition from the people in Crimea. There's no uprising that I've seen reported. Everything seems quiet. As I said, they're not really Ukrainians, so whether they're ruled by Ukraine or Russia, it's still being ruled by a foreign power.

Crimea joined Ukraine by vote without a military looking over it's shoulder.

So, if the people of Crimea are okay with it, what's the problem?

Ifs are not facts.

As for Ukraine, it seems they're none the worse either, since it's business as usual for them, making deals with Biden and having phone conversations with Trump.

Hardly. Ukraine just has no chance to take it back without a war.

Well, as I said, the "legalities" have to be worked out through international negotiations. It's really a matter for Ukraine and Russia to resolve, without any outside interference. It's really none of our business.

Invasions are not negotiations.

You said that the Ukrainians asked for our help, but the Russians asked us not to interfere. Should we disregard George Washington's advice and play favorites here?

Yes we should ignore advice from one that not only has no knowledge of the present but has been dead for centuries.

Should we take sides of one against the other? How does that benefit the American people?

How does that benefit US national interests?

Ukraine aligning with the US and EU strength both economically and militarily.

Not really, no. As I keep saying, there is a history here which you can't simply handwave away.

I am talking about modern agreements not history from 2 centuries ago you happen to drag up which was undone years ago or irrelevant even 100 years ago.

This isn't about Putin or so-called "Russian aggression."

Pure bull or you are naive.

I don't really like Putin, and it appears he's got some sort of weed up his a**, but it also appears that the more we antagonize Russia, the greater hold on power he will have.

Power where? Over what?

No, they're occupying territories which aren't part of Georgia.

Both are part of Georgia. Russia can not declare a part of another nation is not part of that nation no more than the US can declare Saint Petersburg is no longer part of Russia.

Well, it may be good for the indigenous peoples in those territories who want their independence.

Who says that even a majority wants that?

I mean, if the Russians wanted all of Georgia, they could have just taken it. They didn't do that, did they?

Declaring wars of conquest does not really fly these days. Hence why limited pretexts are used.

From another point of view, one could say that they "liberated" it and the troops are there to protect their independence.

Except the claim Russia made was about peace keeping not liberation.

You mean the part that they liberated?

Conquered

If they're a threat now, it's only because the West was unwilling to establish better relations immediately after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact.

Except Russia was not nearly as belligerent until Putin took office. He ruined it not the West.

The Cold War was over, and a new government had taken power in Russia, a government which was open to democratic ideals and freedom.

Hah

There was an opportunity for world peace and stability, but instead of pursuing that course, our government chose to take advantage of the situation to expand its power and hegemony even further.

Ukraine wanted membership. Too bad for Russia and Putin

I see no basis for your diagnosis of "paranoia," Doctor.

Go look up Russia whining about joint military exercise in Poland with NATO members

There's no such thing as a "defensive weapon."

Except for the fact that you claimed that was the purpose. Defense. Beside you are still wrong as many weapons are for defense not offense. AAA for example. AT is often used for defense as it does not have the mobility for offense.

In any case, we believed that any kind of armed force (nuclear or not) in Cuba was a potential threat to the United States, so we balked about it.

It was a threat just as nukes in Turkey were a threat to the USSR.

We even balked about Cuba even before there were nukes. The whole Bay of Pigs debacle was what precipitated Cuba appealing to the USSR for help.

Which the USSR took advantage of.

They wanted assurances that they weren't going to end up like Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Haiti, the Dominican Republic or any number of other countries which fell under the heel of the US military just because they dared to assert their own sovereignty. (And yet you talk about a few minor incidents and call it "Russian aggression.")

The US has been aggressive as well. I never denied this. Beside those CA nations had major issue without the US being involved anyways. Haiti isn't in the situation it is in now only because of the US.

No it's historical fact. Do you Remember the Maine? Or perhaps the Gulf of Tonkin incident? Then there was the incident which was used as a pretext for the German invasion of Poland in 1939, when the Nazis staged some phony raid by Polish patriots who took over a radio station and started broadcasting Polish propaganda. Countries can and do such things, as history will attest.

It is still speculation that this will happen. You are using what ifs to counter my facts. Try again

You can't assume that.

Yes I can as Russia does not have the East Bloc nor the USSR with it.

There are other countries which may view the American-led alliance as a threat to their sovereignty and might seek another powerful ally, if Russia is willing.

NATO isn't a threat. The US is. Without the US NATO couldn't fight any war of moderate length.[/quote]

 

[Shad]

China doesn't seem willing to go that far, although it's hard to say. Nonetheless, China and Russia have had a number of recent joint military exercises. I don't think Russia would be as isolated as you think.

China needs the US economy.

Well, maybe the Russians have a point of view which should be heard. I'm not talking about just Putin. But you've been cavalierly handwaving and disregarding their position at every turn.

You are speculating and disregarding previous agreements Russia has made. I can wave your speculation away without effort as it is speculation. Now cite something from Russia

You say "too bad for Russia," as if you hold some sort of personal animosity against them as a people, while demonstrating that you don't even care what they think.

I don't care for your speculation as that is all your provided. Cite something.

I just am blunt and to the point. If Poland wants to join NATO it is too bad for Russia as Poland is a sovereign nation. Much like how no one is doing anything in Georgia about Russia. It is too bad for Georgie. That what happens when a weak nation faces a strong one with the rest of planet isn't going to risk anything for that weak nation. Poland was smart enough to seek protection against a long time threat that occupied it for 50 years.

What sort of "citation" are you asking for?

Something that you are using as a basis for Russian "concerns" which really seem to be your opinion

I don't even think you've refuted any statements of fact I've made; you've simply dismissed them as "irrelevant" or stated that you simply don't care.

I have. You just do not read close enough. Something being irrelevant is a refutation of context

I think that you're grossly oversimplifying the whole situation. You're just looking at an imaginary line on a map, totally disinterested and far away, and judging a situation you apparently know very little about and saying "Bad Russia! No vodka for you!"

Lines on a map Russia agreed to for almost a century until Putin changed his mind.

I'm also not claiming to know how Russia "feels."

Seems like it to me

That statement is rather absurd.

Given what you say hardly

But I do know enough about the history of the situation that I can say with some certainty that they're not taking actions just because they want to make some sort of "land grab."

You mean your arbitrary cut off points in history that end at the point you want? Impressive. Like your point about Napoleon but inability to even look 40 years before that regarding Poland and Russia?

There's also something else I know about the Russians, something that you seem ignorant of: Russians are not Germans. Putin is not Hitler. (Trump isn't Hitler either, although he does have German ancestry.)

My point was appeasement.

This is also somewhat true in the West, as the historical knowledge of Hitler has strongly influenced US policymakers and our perceptions of the world ever since. (As evidenced by your reference to Chamberlain, which I'll get to shortly.)

The US already formed it's own views long before WW2.

I don't think it would take much coaxing for some of the nations of Latin America to fall out of the American fold, if they could get protection from a larger friendly power.

Neither has the force projection to protect the area short of nukes. China has no combat carriers and the few Russia has are inferior and obsolete by decades. You can not control the sea without air power which means CVs which the US has 11 of just for super-carriers let alone smaller types

They never really liked us that much to begin with, but we really didn't give them any other choice. With companies like United Fruit using our military as mercenaries, it left quite a bitter taste.

Sure but they like our economies.

This is a serious vulnerability which should be addressed.

Defense is not longer confined to region when it comes to the US. This was established even before WW2 but was ignored by the US at great cost.

Our priority should be to bolster relations with Latin America, woo them back on side and encourage more of a "good neighbor" relationship rather than the hegemonic relationship which has been toxic and detrimental to our long-term national interests (despite whatever short-term profits it might have made for United Fruit).

Sure

Stop them from doing what? Invading?

In an invasion scenario. That is what I was talking about. Europe is getting rid of their nukes. Their military combined is a joke. In a war scenario without nukes the EU has no real chance sort of Russia not fighting for a year.

You think they would really invade? And yet, you accuse the Russians of having "paranoia."

It was a scenario.

And they've had more than enough time (along with the national wealth, manpower, and industrial capacity) to build a bigger military force.

Which EU has not bothered with for decades.

I doubt that they would really need it (and apparently, it hasn't been much of a priority for them either). They're the ones on the firing line. They're the ones who would be the first victims in any hypothetical Russian invasion of Europe, and if they don't think they need a bigger army, then why should we?

The EU does not have a large military as something called the US military protects most of those nations.

Maybe they don’t believe Russia is as grave a threat as you do.

Merkel says otherwise.

I still recall the massive protests against nuclear proliferation in Europe back in the early 80s. There was a kind of "better red than dead" idea floating around. Even if the Soviets invaded with conventional weapons, the idea was that it was still preferable to using nuclear weapons to defend against it.

Sure. That what happens when nations have nukes with no military of worth.

I won't say that I agree with that, because I don't. But I just didn't believe the Soviets would ever try it. They had no real reason to do such a thing back then, nor do they have any reason to do so now.

They had 2 reasons they didn't. One was the US military and the other was the US military with nukes.

Well, I suppose the Moon could fall out of the sky, but that doesn't mean it's going to happen anytime soon.

Yawn

Russia is the largest country in land area in the world.

Eastern bloc ring a bell?

The point is, "territory" doesn't appear to be their goal. They've been invaded so many times, their main focus has always been to protect their own territory while striving to achieve a certain strategic position towards that defensive goal. After WW2 and the world alliance systems started to shape up, the Soviets could clearly see that they were encircled by Western alliances, from Europe to CENTO to SEATO to Japan and South Korea.

Haha see above. The West had nukes while the USSR didn't in 45.

The West justified it as "containment," as they had some paranoid delusion that there was such a thing as "Soviet expansionism."

Eastern Bloc....

It wasn't all biscuits and gravy for the West, either, as we got bogged down in hot wars in Korea and Vietnam. We saw our role as defending territory which we believed the Soviets wanted, but our enemies in both wars were not Russians. We were fighting Chinese, Koreans, and Vietnamese on their own soil – and yet, we want to say that it's the Russians' fault?

Russian fought in the NK airforce and supplied it weapons. Trained and supplied NV. China entered the Korean war of it's own accord. Your grasp of history is lacking. MBT of NK? T-34. Main fighter? Migs..... It is called a proxy war. Look it up.

I do have to hand it to the McCarthyite propagandists; they're truly remarkable at their craft. But it was BS back then, and it's still BS today.

I can look at history myself which apparently you have issues with. See the above

Another point to raise is that, since the end of the Cold War, a lot of files became declassified, from both Russia and America. It appears that our military and political leaders from that era had grossly overestimated Soviet military capabilities. There was this huge fear of the Big Russian Bear that justified such a massive military build-up on our part, along with a whole host of underhanded deals, covert ops, manipulation of foreign governments, wars by proxy.

Better to overestimate than underestimate.

One might well wonder if the entire Cold War was just some kind of insane hoax cooked up by the Military-Industrial Complex. I'm not making any definitive claims in that area, but one might well wonder about it.

There is no doubt military personal and politicians that were hawks benefits from those wars and build ups.

Projecting their force around the world has not been their priority.

It isn't about priority but capability

They've been focused on their own regional defense. It seems clear that they have no desire to project their power beyond their region, but they are clearly more than capable of dominating in their own region.

Ergo your just undermined your point about Latin America. Lack of projection power means military options are off the table

The same thing could have been accomplished without NATO.

Which Libya was. Do not get me wrong I think Libya was a huge mistake.

The existence of NATO is justified only if you believe the other member states are nothing more than satellites of America which exist solely to advance US interests.

That isn't my thinking. NATO has one major partner (US) with a lot of minor partners (everyone else). Due to that relationship disparity and other disparities NATO is far more about US interest than other members.

(And I've heard more than a few Europeans and even some Canadians openly express resentment against the US along those lines.)

Sure. Those people can always get their nations to create something called a functional military or leave via politics.

Perhaps not, but they're killing each other. It was a contributory factor in the creation of ISIS, which was indeed a big mess and one they're still trying to clean up. And there's no reason not to expect more messes in the years to come.

It is mess that is smaller but hard to contain and confront using conventional warfare. Saddam's Iraq was a huge target compared to ISIS and such groups.

To what purpose? To whose benefit? Where is the benefit to the average American? What do we get out of it, in terms of tangible net assets?

Do I need to explain force projection?

The citizen benefits as their nation isn't open to attack like it was pre-ww2.

Do you have anything

I presented several facts but you eat up Russian propaganda so ignore it.

Well, it appears that the situation has changed. But either way, they're still border disputes.

Nope as Russia isn't talking to anyone it just seizes land. That is called an invasion.[/quote]

 

[Shad]

I'm just saying that if we had a government which operated in a more reasonable and normal fashion, without becoming deluded with ideas about "American Exceptionalism" or some God-given role to be the world's crusader for truth, justice, and the American Way, we probably would have far fewer problems to deal with today.

US has a general problem of overspending.

I honestly believe that if we had behaved more reasonably at the end of WW2, the Soviets would not have had a need to keep a permanent occupation force in Eastern Europe,

It kept those forces there to keep Poles and Hungarians under control not. The Eastern Bloc was created to protect Russia.

and those countries could have been spared the tribulations of living behind the Iron Curtain.

That had little to do with the West but Russia dominated USSR itself.

But they were just as worried about an attack from the West as we were worried about them, so they used those states as a buffer zone for their own defense.

That was due to Russian lack of defensive terrain to the west and communism itself. Communism at a national level must treat capitalism as a threat

If we had behaved more reasonably, then they would have behaved more reasonably. They weren't Hitler. They weren't Nazis. They weren't Germans.

Yet had no issues occupying other nations..... No threat to see here folks, move along!

I'm not saying that they're saints. I would concede that there's a certain "dark side" to Russia just as there's a "dark side" to America. In my experience, Russians also tend to look at America solely based on its "dark side," without much attention to the "good side." But for both countries, their "dark sides" are not anything like the German "dark side," which is totally different kettle of fish. You can't ascribe the qualities of Nazi Germans to the Russians, even if they may be Communist or authoritarian. You can't predict or project their possible actions based on something Hitler did 80 years ago.

I am talking about what Russia did by their own accord.

Well, as far as what mantel the US accepted, or what it accepts now, that's really up to the American people to decide. That's why it's fair game for discussion and why it's a valid issue in U.S. politics. A lot of Americans aren't too keen on this role we've accepted, and it's a fair question to ask why so much of the world is in such utter turmoil and why so many other nations are too weak or wishy-washy to do anything about it.

Other nations are weak or lack will power to act.. The EU has become comfortable and "fat" China and Russia do not care. There is no one else.

So, we, the American people, are told that the world "needs us," and this is our God-given duty and responsibility.

Most of world has told you it needs the US. Sure the religious reasons may not work on you or I but the principles behind it are solid if one is religious

That's how a lot of Americans see themselves and the role of America in the world, and we've really got to stop this way of looking at things.

That is not how many see themselves. That is what many actually are.

At the very least, we should pick our battles more carefully.

Sure.

I already knew about those events. Russia is not North Korea, but if you want to bring that up, we practically gave North Korea to the Russians anyway, in exchange for their promise to declare war on the Japanese after the defeat of Germany.

Russia held the area anyway. Russia did declare war on Japan. You are repeating something but it isn't history

Kind of a raw deal for the Koreans, but both Russia and America are equally to blame for that wrongful injustice done to the Korean nation. The damage appears irreversible.

America didn't hand over arms to SK like Russia did with China nor NK.

But in any case, you're not refuting my point that they were still "mostly restrained."

Yes I did. You repeat half-truth to outright fictional history at time

That doesn't necessarily exclude minor incidents, but even then, they still kept it within reasonable boundaries. Neither event directly threatened the United States.

As the US had nukes first while demonstrating it would use nukes.

They still could have invaded if they wanted to.

The risk was not worth the gains.

As I said, they're not Germans, and it's fallacious, myopic, and imprudent to respond to them as if they are.

Eastern Bloc...

It wasn't all like that. It was also coupled with cooperation, along with the memory of our alliance with them during WW2. .

Working against a common enemy is not the same as working with an ally of a similar ideology.

In contrast, Hitler wasn't restrained by the US military – or anyone else's military either.

Actually if France and the UK had the will power they could have ended WW2 during the invasion of Poland. Neither nation did. Great War fatigue or whatever you want to call it

We were restrained, too. We couldn't invade China during the Korean War, as much as MacArthur wanted to.

MacArthur wanted to nuke China not invade it.

We couldn't invade Cuba, at least not openly.

Except the US did several times until the alliance with the USSR which would trigger MAD.

We couldn't invade North Vietnam.

Wouldn't. NV had no defensive treaties with China nor the USSR.

We still can't do much about North Korea.

Defensive alliance with China.

And as much as Iran is a thorn in our side, we can't do much about that, since they could potentially get help from the Russians.

Russia wouldn't be involved directly but covertly "open" like it has since Korea

Putin may be many things, but he's not a tinpot dictator.
The key difference is that he hasn't been propped up or installed by some external power.

That isn't what that means.

I don't know what Pakistan has to do with it, but they've been a US ally for decades.

It is a failing/failed state with nukes with terrorist inside the military.

If that's turning out to be a problem for us now, then all I can say is that it's just one of the many pitfalls of having alliances with too many strange bedfellows.

The alliance was due to India really. India was non-aligned but the US wanted a military partner in the area. Pakistan was it. That was how the world was divided then. It was a mistake in hindsight 20/20

. But because we did that, now our weapons became their weapons.

Most still stand no chance. The US does not trade cutting edge technology with minor powers that have no ideological, historical nor cultural links. The US will gut much of it's own equipment in sales. The buyer will install replacements with are a generation or more behind the US and available on the open market for years

The only thing Chamberlain was buy time. It gave them an extra year to build up their armaments.

He failed to build up public will power.

They weren't really that prepared in 1939, either.

Wrong. Germany was baffled that the allies didn't invade during the invasion of Poland. Germany had 200k on the border of France. France had millions on the border.

They had a Phony War from 1939-40, so even the fact that they declared war didn't really seem to frighten the Germans all that much.

That was due to the lack of will not weapons nor manpower. Even during invasion of France the allies outgun and numbered Germany. Germany had better tactics and strategy combined with a will to fight.

Of course, circumstances are different today, but we have to ask ourselves whether we are militarily and psychological prepared for an all-out world war as we go around saber-rattling with China

China is mostly contain due to economic necessity of the Chinese needing trade.

and Russia in a somewhat reckless and rash manner?

What manner is that exactly?

Do Americans have the stomach for battles like Stalingrad?

Some do in my view.

These are the questions we should be asking ourselves before we go rushing headlong on some crusade to save Crimea.

Who said anything about saving Crimea? The risk isn't worth the reward. I am just using it as a point of Russian aggression to advocate for considering Russia a threat.

Any chance they could change their minds? I think Trump has talked about wanting to build more nukes.

Depends if reactionary nationalist parties/movements take political power. I do not see the UK changing under Labour nor Tory at this time. This is without Russia outright provoking a EU nation.

It's not about Russian whining or Ukraine's sovereignty, at least not from our point of view. From our standpoint, we have to ask ourselves what we're willing to do and how far we're willing to go.

No one in their right mind would start a war over Ukraine against Russia. It is about being more prepared which the EU is not.

We can either go to war with them, or we can talk to them and negotiate.

What right does the US to negotiate over territory not part of the US.

If we're going to talk to them and try to persuade them to change their point of view, then we have to know what it is first. So, it might involve listening to some of their "whining," however painful that may be for your ears.

Ethic Russians blah blah casus belli. Russia has been open about this

We supply arms, too. We're both guilty of that particular sin, so neither has any room to talk in throwing stones in this regard.

Sure. Now consider which side you think should get arms in modern issues

So, what are you advocating?

Preparation and alliance building.

I do, but I look at the actual events without speculating or projecting what other nations might do without any basis whatsoever.

You do this with a number of your comments.

There was a great deal of chaos and crime in Russia for many years after the end of the Cold War. Someone had to restore order, and Yeltsin wasn't it.

Which is often how authoritarian gain power.

Well, we've all done that at one point or another. That's just the way the world works, and I don't think that will ever change.

Exactly hence why I think the non-US parts of NATO need to rethink spending.

It was a complete change in government and the entire structure of the nation. It was not merely a change in personnel. .

Putin provided that threat fine by himself.

You mean the same people who, according to you, are incapable of protecting themselves?

They are incapable of protecting themselves. They whine but the status quo remains.

How do they know the US can protect them?

Have you seen the US military?

If we had to face China and Russia on two fronts, we might not win.

That type of war would be nuclear if involving the US. Right now there are 3 powers to align with worth a damn. The US, Russia and China. EU does not have the will nor military. The rest of the planet isn't stable enough for any long term conventional war.

You're the one building it up into a prelude to some death struggle between East and West.

No I am advocating for alliance building and a bit more spending on the military by the EU.

You're seeing things that aren't there, and you're chiding me for "ignoring" things that aren't there.

You have misinterpreted what I advocate for.