Castanza Posted May 12, 2023 Posted May 12, 2023 5 hours ago, John Hjorth said: Reuters [May 11th 2023] : Britain moves first to supply Ukraine with long-range cruise missiles. Someone is about to get beaten up while being well into own territory. Honestly this seems like another mistake imo. This further escalates tensions that initially caused this whole conflict to begin with. NATO expansion in the 90's was unchecked because for the first time the US was the lone Superpower. Much like a government needs internal checks and balances, so to do governments at the geopolitical level. It has led to 750 military bases in 80+ counties. Wars that had no justification. See Wesley Clark interview (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Knt3rKTqCk ). Our last 5 Presidents are war criminals going by their own standards of foreign leaders. Imagine if the War on Drugs was fought in the same way Obama and Bush took out targets in the Middle East. Example: The meth dealer who is a suspected killer is located in this house. Let us send in a drone strike and blow up the whole block killing a few dozen innocent individuals. But hey! One less dealer! There were MANY smart people in the government who disagreed with the expansion of NATO. Three defense secretaries: Robert McNamara, Robert Gates (under Bush & Obama), William Perry (under Clinton) were all vehemently opposed to NATO Expansion. Even George Kennon the guy who invented the Containment Strategy and won the Cold War said NATO expansion post-Cold War was a massive mistake. Here is a 1998 interview he did where hey lays out exactly what would happen with Russia and NATO expansion: https://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/02/opinion/foreign-affairs-now-a-word-from-x.html NOBODY wanted to listen to the smart people in the room. And the World/Ukraine is paying for it now. NATO expansion and the potential negative effects of it were being discussed many times. If you look up "Nyet means Nyet" you can read a leaked document between Burns and Condoleezza Rice. Three months later Georgia and Russia go to war after NATO includes them against their own warnings. There are people in the business of making war; and making war is what they do. NATO has been anything but a defensive alliance since the 90's. It's been led by countries which have started 7 wars and decimated multiple countries caused millions of deaths all in 30 years. Look at Libya. Removing Ghaddafi has led to open air slave markets there today. You think those people are better off now? Can anyone point me to a good example of the US or the "West" removing leadership in a foreign country which then lead to better leadership? Yeah, WWII with Hitler but that was a different type of event (contrary to what some on here might say). Ultimately Hitler, Lenin and Stalin were all products of regime changes from WWI. Look at the countless countries int he Middle East and South America we have fucked with. Take out Putin and there is NO guarantee that a worse leader does not take his place. Then what? Do we want a country like Russia turning into a Libya? Where it’s run by the strongest war lord? Sounds like a recipe for Russian Terrorism which I guarantee you will be far worse than Al Qaeda. America screwed up when it decided to adopt the idea that world leaders need to meet our expectations of acceptable governance. Putin is a shitbag but he is also not the worst there has been in Russia. Americans are so far removed from war I don’t think most people can think about it in terms that make it feel real. The West is desensitized to it. They just go out, buy their latte, go to the ball game, continue to book their yearly vacations thinking nothing bad will ever happen to the US. It's mind boggling to me that Americans have their own heads so far up their own asses that they think nothing bad will or could ever happen to us. They go on vacations to Rome, Egypt, Peru and see these once great empires and it never dawns on them that one day people could be going on vacation and looking at the former White House and Monuments in D.C. in all their glory. America has become a nation of decadence and laziness over the last 40 years. There is something that prevents people from viewing the time they live in against that of history. It’s a mental block that most people have and I think it leads to poor decision making. It is ironic that the majority of people against the war in Ukraine are the ones who actually went and fought in a mostly useless war. They have seen the futility and outcome of these crusades. We've been the benefactor of having the best military and technology to maintain that superpower position. But we are playing with fire right now in this Ukrainian conflict. If this war is so important to Americas long term strategic situation/freedom then why are we not on the ground? Because it isn't and because that would push the needle of nuclear war a little too far into the red. But hey, lets see how far we can push that needle without putting boots on the ground. Ukrainians are pawns in an unnecessary proxy was that was avoidable. We don't give a shit about them.
cubsfan Posted May 12, 2023 Posted May 12, 2023 10 minutes ago, Castanza said: Honestly this seems like another mistake imo. This further escalates tensions that initially caused this whole conflict to begin with. NATO expansion in the 90's was unchecked because for the first time the US was the lone Superpower. Much like a government needs internal checks and balances, so to do governments at the geopolitical level. It has led to 750 military bases in 80+ counties. Wars that had no justification. See Wesley Clark interview (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Knt3rKTqCk ). Our last 5 Presidents are war criminals going by their own standards of foreign leaders. Imagine if the War on Drugs was fought in the same way Obama and Bush took out targets in the Middle East. Example: The meth dealer who is a suspected killer is located in this house. Let us send in a drone strike and blow up the whole block killing a few dozen innocent individuals. But hey! One less dealer! There were MANY smart people in the government who disagreed with the expansion of NATO. Three defense secretaries: Robert McNamara, Robert Gates (under Bush & Obama), William Perry (under Clinton) were all vehemently opposed to NATO Expansion. Even George Kennon the guy who invented the Containment Strategy and won the Cold War said NATO expansion post-Cold War was a massive mistake. Here is a 1998 interview he did where hey lays out exactly what would happen with Russia and NATO expansion: https://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/02/opinion/foreign-affairs-now-a-word-from-x.html NOBODY wanted to listen to the smart people in the room. And the World/Ukraine is paying for it now. NATO expansion and the potential negative effects of it were being discussed many times. If you look up "Nyet means Nyet" you can read a leaked document between Burns and Condoleezza Rice. Three months later Georgia and Russia go to war after NATO includes them against their own warnings. There are people in the business of making war; and making war is what they do. NATO has been anything but a defensive alliance since the 90's. It's been led by countries which have started 7 wars and decimated multiple countries caused millions of deaths all in 30 years. Look at Libya. Removing Ghaddafi has led to open air slave markets there today. You think those people are better off now? Can anyone point me to a good example of the US or the "West" removing leadership in a foreign country which then lead to better leadership? Yeah, WWII with Hitler but that was a different type of event (contrary to what some on here might say). Ultimately Hitler, Lenin and Stalin were all products of regime changes from WWI. Look at the countless countries int he Middle East and South America we have fucked with. Take out Putin and there is NO guarantee that a worse leader does not take his place. Then what? Do we want a country like Russia turning into a Libya? Where it’s run by the strongest war lord? Sounds like a recipe for Russian Terrorism which I guarantee you will be far worse than Al Qaeda. America screwed up when it decided to adopt the idea that world leaders need to meet our expectations of acceptable governance. Putin is a shitbag but he is also not the worst there has been in Russia. Americans are so far removed from war I don’t think most people can think about it in terms that make it feel real. The West is desensitized to it. They just go out, buy their latte, go to the ball game, continue to book their yearly vacations thinking nothing bad will ever happen to the US. It's mind boggling to me that Americans have their own heads so far up their own asses that they think nothing bad will or could ever happen to us. They go on vacations to Rome, Egypt, Peru and see these once great empires and it never dawns on them that one day people could be going on vacation and looking at the former White House and Monuments in D.C. in all their glory. America has become a nation of decadence and laziness over the last 40 years. There is something that prevents people from viewing the time they live in against that of history. It’s a mental block that most people have and I think it leads to poor decision making. It is ironic that the majority of people against the war in Ukraine are the ones who actually went and fought in a mostly useless war. They have seen the futility and outcome of these crusades. We've been the benefactor of having the best military and technology to maintain that superpower position. But we are playing with fire right now in this Ukrainian conflict. If this war is so important to Americas long term strategic situation/freedom then why are we not on the ground? Because it isn't and because that would push the needle of nuclear war a little too far into the red. But hey, lets see how far we can push that needle without putting boots on the ground. Ukrainians are pawns in an unnecessary proxy was that was avoidable. We don't give a shit about them. Nice rant - but your whole premise is based on the notion that the NATO alliance has been a failure. And of course, that is where you are wrong. At what point in the history of Europe has there been a 70 year stretch of virtually no European wars? As imperfect as NATO is - it’s been a remarkable defensive alliance against the Soviets. There is a very simple reason that other countries wish to join NATO. The alliance works.
Castanza Posted May 12, 2023 Posted May 12, 2023 (edited) 23 minutes ago, cubsfan said: Nice rant - but your whole premise is based on the notion that the NATO alliance has been a failure. And of course, that is where you are wrong. At what point in the history of Europe has there been a 70 year stretch of virtually no European wars? As imperfect as NATO is - it’s been a remarkable defensive alliance against the Soviets. There is a very simple reason that other countries wish to join NATO. The alliance works. Yet NATO has lead to this exact conflict.....probably the greatest threat of nuclear war the world has come to. 70 years is not a long time in the context of history to judge something as a success or failure. But the fact remains that people have been shouting about this exact outcome since the end of the Cold War and here we are, right on schedule. What exactly do you consider a success? Plenty of conflicts in Europe. Many of the worse ones are directly related to NATO expansion. Too many people cannot think about conflicts with an unbiased opinion. Park some long range missiles backed by Russia in Vancouver pointed at Seattle, Portland, and Denver and what would the US response be? We would turn Vancouver to glass in 24hrs. 1944–1956 Guerrilla war in the Baltic states 1945–1949 Greek Civil War 1946–1948 Corfu Channel incident 1947–1962 Romanian anti-communist resistance movement 1953 Uprising in East Germany 1955-1959 Cyprus Emergency 1956 Uprising in Poznań 1956 Hungarian Revolution 1956–1962 Operation Harvest 1958 First Cod War 1959–2011 Basque conflict 1967 Greek coup d'état 1968 Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia 1968–1998 The Troubles 1970–1984 Unrest in Italy 1972–1973 Second Cod War 1974 Turkish invasion of Cyprus 1974 Carnation Revolution 1975 Coup of 25 November 1975 1975–1976 Third Cod War 1976–2016 Corsican conflict 1981 Spanish coup d'état attempt 1986 Evros River incident 1988-1994 First Nagorno-Karabakh War 1989 Romanian Revolution 1990–1991 Soviet attacks on Lithuanian border posts 1990 Transnistria conflict 1990–1992 Transnistria War 1991 January Events 1991 The Barricades 1990 Log Revolution 1991–2001 Yugoslav Wars 1991 Ten-Day War 1991–1995 Croatian War of Independence 1992–1995 Bosnian War 1992–1994 Croat–Bosniak War 1998–1999 Kosovo War 1999–2001 Insurgency in the Preševo Valley 2001 2001 insurgency in Macedonia 1991–1992 Georgian war against Russo-Ossetian alliance 1991–1993 Georgian Civil War 1992 East Prigorodny Conflict 1992–1993 War in Abkhazia 1993 1993 Cherbourg incident 1993 1993 Russian constitutional crisis 1995–1996 Imia/Kardak military crisis 1997–1998 Cyprus Missile Crisis 1997 Albanian civil war of 1997 1997–present Dissident Irish Republican campaign 1998 Six-Day War of Abkhazia 2001 Georgia, Kodori crisis 2001 Insurgency in the Republic of Macedonia 2004–2013 Unrest in Kosovo 2004 2004 unrest in Kosovo 2008 2008 unrest in Kosovo 2011–2013 North Kosovo crisis 2004 Georgia, Adjara crisis 2004 Georgia, South Ossetia clashes 2006 Georgia, Kodori crisis 2008 Russo-Georgian war 2014–present Russo-Ukrainian War (outline) 2014 Pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine 2014–present Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation 2014–present Russo-Ukrainian War 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis 2022–present Russian invasion of Ukraine 2020 Second Nagorno-Karabakh war Edited May 12, 2023 by Castanza
cubsfan Posted May 12, 2023 Posted May 12, 2023 ^^^^ When you have to resort to 55 hyperlinks to debate the merits, I rest my case. And in the history of a warring Europe for centuries on end - NATO accomplished something remarkable. But just for fun - specifically tell me how many NATO members have been attacked by the Soviets since the formation of NATO?
John Hjorth Posted May 12, 2023 Posted May 12, 2023 4 minutes ago, cubsfan said: ^^^^ When you have to resort to 55 hyperlinks to debate the merits, I rest my case ... This made me chuckle, Mike [ @cubsfan ], However, The seriousness of the matter still stands. I'll here publicly admit, that I am a citizen of a North European state, that did not carry out sufficient due diligence on the matter at hand in the first place. Today, I personally cringe about it, being unaware of what has been going on and building up for years. To me personally, it's actually and indeed very embarrassing.
Castanza Posted May 12, 2023 Posted May 12, 2023 26 minutes ago, cubsfan said: ^^^^ When you have to resort to 55 hyperlinks to debate the merits, I rest my case. And in the history of a warring Europe for centuries on end - NATO accomplished something remarkable. But just for fun - specifically tell me how many NATO members have been attacked by the Soviets since the formation of NATO? Mike, You said NATO has brought peace to Europe for 70 years. I just listed dozens of conflicts many of which involved NATO countries. Rest your case from what? Tell me how NATO has brought peace to Europe.... You're the one claiming it has been a raging success when the evidence points to the contrary. Your claim is dismantled by a 2 second internet search. Ukraine is being attacked. They are a proxy NATO country. The US has been supporting them since the mid 2000's with both trainings and defense. They are everything NATO except in title. I don't think there has been a more telegraphed conflict in the history of humanity than this Ukrainian crisis. American and Western hubris brought this on. Every credible Cold War expert said NATO expansion was a bad idea. from the 90's on NATO went from being primarily defensive to offensive. That is the problem.
cubsfan Posted May 12, 2023 Posted May 12, 2023 2 minutes ago, Castanza said: Mike, You said NATO has brought peace to Europe for 70 years. I just listed dozens of conflicts many of which involved NATO countries. Rest your case from what? Tell me how NATO has brought peace to Europe.... You're the one claiming it has been a raging success when the evidence points to the contrary. Your claim is dismantled by a 2 second internet search. Ukraine is being attacked. They are a proxy NATO country. The US has been supporting them since the mid 2000's with both trainings and defense. They are everything NATO except in title. I don't think there has been a more telegraphed conflict in the history of humanity than this Ukrainian crisis. American and Western hubris brought this on. Every credible Cold War expert said NATO expansion was a bad idea. from the 90's on NATO went from being primarily defensive to offensive. That is the problem. Try and weasel out all you like. The foundation issue is how many NATO countries have been attacked by the Soviets? If you continue to dodge the question, you’ll be unable to understand the truth: NATO has been a remarkable success. it’s not personal, it’s about what is true.
Castanza Posted May 12, 2023 Posted May 12, 2023 (edited) 2 minutes ago, cubsfan said: Try and weasel out all you like. The foundation issue is how many NATO countries have been attacked by the Soviets? If you continue to dodge the question, you’ll be unable to understand the truth: NATO has been a remarkable success. it’s not personal, it’s about what is true. Georgia was attacked immediately upon trying to join NATO. Russia literally said that. Ukraine was attacked in 2014 by being NATO is everything but name. Russia also said that. Edited May 12, 2023 by Castanza
cubsfan Posted May 12, 2023 Posted May 12, 2023 (edited) ^^^ Oh so it’s really zero. Appreciate your honesty. Looks like quite an admirable record. Edited May 12, 2023 by cubsfan
John Hjorth Posted May 12, 2023 Posted May 12, 2023 3 minutes ago, Castanza said: ... Every credible Cold War expert said NATO expansion was a bad idea. from the 90's on NATO went from being primarily defensive to offensive. That is the problem. ... @Castanza, I seldom participate in these discussions in this topic. I would just say here : You - as a US citizen - should not even have an opinion on that particular matter. It's simply none of your business, if you believe in true democracy.
Castanza Posted May 12, 2023 Posted May 12, 2023 (edited) 7 minutes ago, John Hjorth said: @Castanza, I seldom participate in these discussions in this topic. I would just say here : You - as a US citizen - should not even have an opinion on that particular matter. It's simply none of your business, if you believe in true democracy. I spend tax dollars on it and it's not my business? Someone launches a nuke and I get drafted yet it's none of my business? Respectfully, your comment doesn't even make sense. If it's none of our business to have an opinion on the matter then why is it any of Europe's business to accept our money and weapons? I guess by your standards I should never hear a European on here mention American politics then? Lastly, we are a Constitutional Republic with representative democracy. Opinions of the citizens are expected. This isn't "democracy" in the pure sense. Edited May 12, 2023 by Castanza
John Hjorth Posted May 12, 2023 Posted May 12, 2023 7 minutes ago, Castanza said: I spend tax dollars on it and it's not my business? Respectfully, your comment doesn't even make sense. I guess by your standards I should never hear a European on here mention American politics then? You are messing up your US miniscule voting right of yours related to NATO with the voting rights of other citizens of other nations in Europe. As I already said, this is not relevant for you. And please go somewhere else with this : "I spend tax dollars on it and it's not my business?". It does not matter, unless you decide to run for an office to become a politician, or unless you relocate to Europe for taxation etc. [, in the first case I'll stop reading your posts here on CoBF]. Please get real, and please stop posting stuff, that has no real merit.
Castanza Posted May 12, 2023 Posted May 12, 2023 (edited) 46 minutes ago, cubsfan said: ^^^ Oh so it’s really zero. Appreciate your honesty. Looks like quite an admirable record. Mike, NATO is like the kid who sticks a finger in your face and says “I’m not touching you!” Since the 90’s. The fact that you can’t admit the blunder over the last 30 years regarding NATO is sad. You’ve got to be able to see the pros and cons, wins, losses and mistakes. Gow do you reconcile your views with your boy Trump? He says he wants to end the war in “24hrs.” What exactly is your view in NATO long term? Have everyone join? Continue to pay billions to foreign countries with their hands out while ignoring stuff back here? Edited May 12, 2023 by Castanza
Castanza Posted May 12, 2023 Posted May 12, 2023 19 minutes ago, John Hjorth said: , in the first case I'll stop reading your posts here on CoBF]. I’m heart broken….an entitled European with his hand out won’t read my posts anymore. I’ll send you my tax bill. Lord knows I’m paying more than you for this war.
Castanza Posted May 12, 2023 Posted May 12, 2023 (edited) 42 minutes ago, John Hjorth said: @Castanza, What the heck is it with you today? Me? I make a reasonable post detailing the failures of NATO since the 90s. List dozens of conflicts that occurred in EU since NATO started. Show two examples specifically involving Russia and NATO discussions. Show multiple former Defense Secretaries under multiple administrations and the architect of the Cold War policy who disagree with NATO expansion and warned that it would lead to the exact conflict we are in now. You and Mike insult me and say I can’t have an opinion? Gtfoh. Mike who I agree with in a lot of things is a bit of a neocon on this topic. That’s fine, but at least present another argument or be willing to see where your own argument falls short. I didn’t say NATO was a total failure. But since the 90s it has been. It has not prevented conflicts with the exact power it was supposed to prevent them with. Russia did exactly what they said they would do multiple times. John respectfully I haven’t seen you make a single post on this forum that isn’t bitching and moaning about someone else’s post or thread because it’s not the “exact” content you want to see. You bitch about macro stuff, threads that are too specific, threads that are about a topic you simply don’t like. Don’t read it; or at least don’t come into the topic and say “I don’t typically comment” then leave a single line of text with no real meaning and walk away from the conversation. You literally entered this conversation with “I haven’t been paying attention”….then end with “You don’t get to have an opinion on a war you’re primarily funding because you’re not an elected official in the US.” “Don’t comment unless it has merit” even though what I said was almost verbatim the opinion of multiple Generals and former US defense secretaries that basically predicted this conflict with a crystal ball. So if you want to discuss “merit” of opinions take it up with them. You seem like a guy who would have a lot of interesting opinions and I would like to hear them. Here is an idea….why don’t you give me your synopsis on the War in Ukraine. Why did it start, what’s the solution, how does it end? I like hearing the opinion of Ukraine from all side of this. It has changed my opinion on the war and what America/NATO should be doing now, and in the future. I said before I’m not opposed to supporting Ukraine as I believe this problem was primarily created by us. @Xerxes @Spekulatius @no_free_lunch @changegonnacome and others all make very good points from often opposing sides. Edited May 12, 2023 by Castanza
cubsfan Posted May 12, 2023 Posted May 12, 2023 1 hour ago, Castanza said: Mike, NATO is like the kid who sticks a finger in your face and says “I’m not touching you!” Since the 90’s. The fact that you can’t admit the blunder over the last 30 years regarding NATO is sad. You’ve got to be able to see the pros and cons, wins, losses and mistakes. Gow do you reconcile your views with your boy Trump? He says he wants to end the war in “24hrs.” What exactly is your view in NATO long term? Have everyone join? Continue to pay billions to foreign countries with their hands out while ignoring stuff back here? Ha, good one! If my boy Trump was running the show, your buddy Vlad would have never made his move. Putin, of course has not one ounce of fear in Joe HidenBiden or Obama. I can’t prove that of course and it’s just my opinion… But the FACT is, the TRUTH is, NATO provided a very effective deterrent to the Russians for 70 years. That fact is not up for debate regardless of how you try and spin it. You’re a very smart guy and will figure it out one of these days. That we may be on the precipice of war with the Russians is NOT the fault of NATO, but squarely in the lap of Putin.
cubsfan Posted May 12, 2023 Posted May 12, 2023 Oh yeah @Castanza, I’m totally with YOU on the issue of the US funding NATO. Unfortunately that’s the price we pay to keep peace in Europe, while the Europeans jump on for the free ride. There is no better ally in the world for the US than a united Europe. You and I can hope that they will take this alliance much more seriously and contribute meaningfully unlike the past. You are correct- we have large problems at home we ignore by being the world’s policeman. It’s very unfortunate Europe trashes the shit out of us, while at the same time having their hands out. that’s the price we pay for some level of world peace. It’s sucks big time.
cubsfan Posted May 12, 2023 Posted May 12, 2023 Europe led by France (hope my French wife doesn’t read this) and Germany - the extremely weak leaders of Europe since they are total pacifists and hypocrites- are now waking up to their failures of letting Putin run wild. And of course, with their buddy Obama - largely created this disaster. Unfortunately, this conflict is uniting the allies- but the damage is largely already done. So @Castanza, you, John and I are not quite as far apart as you might think. Weak leaders got us into this mess by giving Vlad the green light. But the solution is NOT to destroy NATO - it’s to make NATO much stronger - and get rid of those weak leaders not serious about this alliance. I’ll apologize for any insults.
shhughes1116 Posted May 12, 2023 Posted May 12, 2023 1 hour ago, cubsfan said: Europe led by France (hope my French wife doesn’t read this) and Germany - the extremely weak leaders of Europe since they are total pacifists and hypocrites- are now waking up to their failures of letting Putin run wild. And of course, with their buddy Obama - largely created this disaster. Unfortunately, this conflict is uniting the allies- but the damage is largely already done. So @Castanza, you, John and I are not quite as far apart as you might think. Weak leaders got us into this mess by giving Vlad the green light. But the solution is NOT to destroy NATO - it’s to make NATO much stronger - and get rid of those weak leaders not serious about this alliance. I’ll apologize for any insults. The leadership of NATO is shifting. The NATO of past years was led by the United States and Germany and France. The pain of WW2 was recent for leaders and citizens of these countries. The leaders of those countries, and the citizens, had experienced that pain first-hand, and believed that the Soviets were ready to bring a similar level of pain to Western Europe, engendering strong support for NATO. Those citizens and leaders are now dead. They have been replaced by leaders and citizens who lack that direct experience to the pain and destruction of WW2, and the understanding that bullies must be confronted rather than appeased. Without first-hand experience of that pain and destruction, there is little motivation or appetite for the sacrifice necessary to support a military alliance like NATO. But, I believe we are seeing the leadership of NATO transition before our eyes. I believe the torch of NATO will be carried forward by the former Warsaw Bloc countries. For them, the pain of the USSR is recent, and the pain of Ukraine is right on their doorstep. Their leaders and citizens have a direct connection to this pain, and understand that bullies must be confronted rather than appeased. NATO will not disappear into the ether, rather it will be re-invigorated. Leadership will come from a coalition of former Warsaw Bloc countries like Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania.
cubsfan Posted May 12, 2023 Posted May 12, 2023 21 minutes ago, shhughes1116 said: The leadership of NATO is shifting. The NATO of past years was led by the United States and Germany and France. The pain of WW2 was recent for leaders and citizens of these countries. The leaders of those countries, and the citizens, had experienced that pain first-hand, and believed that the Soviets were ready to bring a similar level of pain to Western Europe, engendering strong support for NATO. Those citizens and leaders are now dead. They have been replaced by leaders and citizens who lack that direct experience to the pain and destruction of WW2, and the understanding that bullies must be confronted rather than appeased. Without first-hand experience of that pain and destruction, there is little motivation or appetite for the sacrifice necessary to support a military alliance like NATO. But, I believe we are seeing the leadership of NATO transition before our eyes. I believe the torch of NATO will be carried forward by the former Warsaw Bloc countries. For them, the pain of the USSR is recent, and the pain of Ukraine is right on their doorstep. Their leaders and citizens have a direct connection to this pain, and understand that bullies must be confronted rather than appeased. NATO will not disappear into the ether, rather it will be re-invigorated. Leadership will come from a coalition of former Warsaw Bloc countries like Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania. Very nice. I think Castanza’s point about the “failure” of NATO are in line with the failed leadership you describe. Keeping a military alliance together takes constant hard work - and NATO is no different.
Castanza Posted May 12, 2023 Posted May 12, 2023 4 minutes ago, cubsfan said: Very nice. I think Castanza’s point about the “failure” of NATO are in line with the failed leadership you describe. Keeping a military alliance together takes constant hard work - and NATO is no different. Yes and no. Is there any evidence to support an aggressive Russia post Cold War without countries directly on their border discussing NATO membership 90's onward? I mean you can follow the map and timeline alongside the comments from both Russian leadership and American leadership. @cubsfan I think our difference is the framework with which we view geopolitics. I think aggression should be a last resort and I think a proper classification of aggression is required. A lot of people out there try to exclude certain things from "aggression". Building an alliance with contracts and then parking weapons on someone's border is aggression. We wouldn't tolerate it here. Sanctions, financial attacks, and trade disputes can also be seen as aggression. But your view seems to be more of be as strong as possible and always make sure you have the pressure on. I don't think you need to prod borders and keep the pressure on to maintain peace. Geographically speaking it makes sense for Russia to want Ukraine as a defensive position. So between NATO pushing up against Russia and Ukraine basically becoming a NATO nation by proxy it kind of forced Russia's hand. Their demographics are shit. Their border "defendabiliy" is shit and they see their "enemies" banning together along all of their borders. Imagine if instead of excluding Russia from NATO post WWII we found a way to integrate them. What would Europe look like today? America needs to come to terms with the idea that not every world leader has to fit our values to a T. You can have some bad actors out there and live and let live. We've done it with China for along time now and to our great benefit. I still see no clear way for this conflict to end. Do you?
cubsfan Posted May 12, 2023 Posted May 12, 2023 42 minutes ago, Castanza said: Yes and no. Is there any evidence to support an aggressive Russia post Cold War without countries directly on their border discussing NATO membership 90's onward? I mean you can follow the map and timeline alongside the comments from both Russian leadership and American leadership. @cubsfan I think our difference is the framework with which we view geopolitics. I think aggression should be a last resort and I think a proper classification of aggression is required. A lot of people out there try to exclude certain things from "aggression". Building an alliance with contracts and then parking weapons on someone's border is aggression. We wouldn't tolerate it here. Sanctions, financial attacks, and trade disputes can also be seen as aggression. But your view seems to be more of be as strong as possible and always make sure you have the pressure on. I don't think you need to prod borders and keep the pressure on to maintain peace. Geographically speaking it makes sense for Russia to want Ukraine as a defensive position. So between NATO pushing up against Russia and Ukraine basically becoming a NATO nation by proxy it kind of forced Russia's hand. Their demographics are shit. Their border "defendabiliy" is shit and they see their "enemies" banning together along all of their borders. Imagine if instead of excluding Russia from NATO post WWII we found a way to integrate them. What would Europe look like today? America needs to come to terms with the idea that not every world leader has to fit our values to a T. You can have some bad actors out there and live and let live. We've done it with China for along time now and to our great benefit. I still see no clear way for this conflict to end. Do you? I don’t totally follow your logic but that’s ok. I believe in deterrence as a military strategy. The Russia is indeed an aggressive neighbor that wishes to rebuild the great Soviet empire of the past - is perhaps where we differ. I don’t think it’s any secret that Putin has always been furious about the dismantling of the empire by Gorbachev. Sovereign nations have a right to defend themselves. That former satellite nations, once under the control of the Soviets, wish to protect themselves from Putin , by joining NATO- makes total sense. Putin doesn’t fool anyone. It’s never been about the defense of Russia. That’s just an excuse. It’s always been about rebuilding Russia’s former greatness.
shhughes1116 Posted May 13, 2023 Posted May 13, 2023 1 hour ago, cubsfan said: Putin doesn’t fool anyone. It’s never been about the defense of Russia. That’s just an excuse. It’s always been about rebuilding Russia’s former greatness. Your second point is absolutely correct. But I must quibble with your first point. There seem to be many out there fooled by Putin, even to this day.
formthirteen Posted May 13, 2023 Posted May 13, 2023 4 hours ago, Castanza said: NATO expansion in the 90's was unchecked because for the first time the US was the lone Superpower. Russia is the only country with unchecked territorial expansion: Donbas, Crimea, largest country on Earth, fucking LOL. However, the US is the only country with unchecked cultural expansion. Europe has plenty of useful and weak politicians (Macron, Scholtz, Merkel, Schröder, etc) who support the "triumph of evil". Quote The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. It's all pretty simple (until it isn't). Here's what one Russian thinks: Do we love freedom enough?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now