NATO - myth or legend?

[Gaul]

Ok, so let's try this again. With the grace of Garbarsardar, I was allowed to re open this topic. This is what I said to him, this being my focus point in a nut shell.

"My point is that is NATO really dependable or not? I have my severe doubts about their commitment and ability to defend east Europe. These poor sap countries are going to be sold out again during political bartering, during WW2 Poland is the obvious and the Baltic example being they were supposed to be under German protection, but Hitler gave that up in exchange for a blot of central Poland formerly controlled by the Soviet Union. When there's much to gain, unfortunately imperialists win and dominion states loose."

Giving the virtual fact there will be no hot war, ever, (virtual fact) between NATO and Russia, but dare one make a move (hypothetically and a very slim reality) who will make the first move? And who will be willing to fire back?

Russia has the callousness to use nuclear weapons and Russia would be daring enough to attack a NATO member. Will they? No. I feel all 7 billion people on this planet have had enough of war and suffering, and as we have been ushered into the year 2016, nobody wants a continuation of that. Is America an injured deer, and Putin is a wolf that smells blood? At one time, but again, it's 2016 and I dare say we don't want to step 1000 years into the past again for anything.


Pushing this point, I feel Putin realizes the spoils of peaceful trade and open dialogue with the world is much more fruitful than a proxy war in Ukraine. Putin wanted Ukraine bad, and when they said no he was a little heart broken, to say the least. But when does mankind ever enter the "future"? When will we have peace and stability? Yes, Vladamir Putin can pull an opposite Ronald Reagan, but doing Jesus work feels so much better.... Help the world feel alive again.


Back to my original topic, NATO is a disorganized alliance of several nations, each with their own agendas, wants, and desires. Putin, not so much.

[snuggans]

you could try this thread in the political academy since you have no news article or this could really just be another post in the Ukraine thread or Eastern Europe geopolitics thread

[Heathen Hammer]

NATO was originally created to defend Western countries against the existential threat, which is no longer present today (aside from Cold War paranoia about Iran and Russia, which is mainly induced by the mass media on gullible individuals). However, it still remains as a Cold War relict, mainly because it makes a lot of money for US military-industrial complex, while putting a huge burden on the US taxpayer.

[Condottiere 40K]

As long as Putin believes, it doesn't matter if it's a myth.

The French and British each have an independent nuclear arsenal; most people believe the British might hesitate, the French won't if they're threatened.

[Heathen Hammer]

Putin believes in ratings and his (and his oligarch owners) offshore bank accounts in NATO countries.

[Caligula's_Horse]

The whole point of NATO is that the sheer threat of it being used to escalate a smaller conflict into global nuclear war means that if it works, we'll never have to find out. It might not hold if something happens to the US and Europe that causes them to adopt a more isolationist stand, but as of right now, its likely enough to get results that the Russians shouldn't try anything with a NATO member, simply because they're not suicidal. Of course, the more small, difficult to defend and economically none-too-dominant nations are added to NATO, the more fragile the alliance becomes.
Something else worth noting is that the Russians feel more threatened by NATO boxing them in and limiting their ability to dominate what they see as their rightful sphere of influence than NATO feels threatened by them at this point.

[Chromium]

NATO is quite possibly the most dangerous threat there is to Human existence.

No one- absolutely no one I know of who's not White and a Westerner approves of NATO and there are lots of people I know back home who don't approve of it as well. At present, the organization is just one big corrupt ball of shady weapons-dealers and greasy politicians ought to line their pockets by funding WW3.

I won't be surprised if BRICS- and Iran- already have some sort of mutual understanding to defend each other if NATO does 'defend' itself. Because NATO has been 'defending' itself far too many times for comfort these past few years and none of them have ended well for anyone who isn't a 1%er.

[Roma_Victrix]

This thread lacks a news article, and should henceforth be moved to the Political Academy. There is no legitimate current event to be discussed here. We already have a thread focused on the conflict in Ukraine.

[Tiberios]

​Moved to the Academy.

[Condottiere 40K]

Georgia is slowly rebuilding it's military, with American support; chances are the Americans will do the same service for the Ukrainians, once the heat's off.

Probably waiting for whatever colour revolution will hit Belarus, and let Putin persuade Finland and Sweden that they have to formally join the good guys.

[Dromikaites]

The annexation of Crimea and the invasion of Eastern Ukraine resulted in NATO moving more and more assets to Eastern Europe. Within a year the American Anti-ballistic missiles shield in Eastern Europe will be operational, further limiting Russia's nuclear options. NATO's Patriot batteries were deployed in Turkey in response to the Russian buildup in Syria.

Given the above it looks to me the Russian Federation has been dragged into yet another arms race which would result in her collapse and dismantling, just like the previous arms race resulted in the collapse and dismantling of the Soviet Union. Therefore I would say NATO does work as advertised: whoever messes with the West is screwed.

[Gaul]

A few of you guys prove exactly my point. NATO can add smaller countries all they want, and of recently, move troops and weapons into Georgia or Romania, but if Russia fired first, would NATO fire back? My point of being the OP is that were not necessarily debating WW3, but in fact saying WW3 won't happen. Not every political discussion has a criptic outcome What if Russia annexed Georgia or from Kaliningrad invade Lithuania and than northward to Latvia and Estonia? Do you see us launching nukes or counter attacking through Turkey? Or through Finland? NATO would hold a meeting with every last option on the table - aside from using it's military. And Vlad knows empire building is off the table. And I don't say that with malice. I say it because we're in the modern information age, I say it because politicians were suits and not robes. His meddling in Ukraine has been proven hard, the Russian economy is still falling.

And if we attacked say their airbase in Syria, what would Russia do? Putin would be scratching his head until he reached his own brain - I don't want to hurt anyone, I didn't want it to come down to this. How do I respond? Let's talk. Ahh, you see he's not so impossible after all. All he wanted was to put Russia on the world stage again. And we (USA) could use help.

And, again, NATO is multi national. Germany France and Italy want most or all sanctions lifted on Russia, USA and UK don't. So it's safe to say NATO has more bark than it's bite. But luckily we won't be needing either.

[Gaul]

I don't want to hurt anyone, I didn't want it to come down to this.

And the exact techniques in Ukraine are debatable. Surely he has provided weapons and a few troops, but mostly it is the east "Ukrainians" giving Kiev a big huge headache. The casualty count is high enough to be regrettable.

[Dromikaites]

Putin knows NATO means business. He might have had some doubts before Turkey shot down a Russian airplane.

And if that somehow didn't give him something to think about, the Anti-Ballistic Missile shield becoming operational yesterday in Romania definitely sent the clearest message.

Judging from the high level of mouth foaming of the Russian officials after AEGIS Ashore became operational the likelihood of Russia attempting something funny in the Baltics is highly unlikely.

[Diocle]

NATO is dead. NATO is no more able to act and react in any way. If you look at what happened in Lybia, Syria, Ukraine you'll see that NATO has never been able to act as an alliance, the single nations do what they want as they can, following their national interests. Inside NATO the interests are different and diverging, Germany and Italy are close supporters of Putin (don't care about offical words, look at the actions!), Britain and France have different interest and all the Europeans are direct competitors of the USA, NATO is dead because there is no more a common policy between Atlantic nations, today WW2 is really ended.

@Dromo: Putin doesn't care about Baltics, Putin already got what he wanted: Crimea. About Ukraine: Putin doesn't want American rockets on his doorstep, end of the story. AEGIS? Do you understand Dromeo that if Russia decides to attack Romania, AEGIS or not AEGIS, you would be nuked in few minutes? The same can be said for Germany, Poland & C., France and UK, of course.

[AnthoniusII]

NATO was never dependable, but neither other side was.
In 1987 Turkey desided to invade Greece (both two of the oldest NATO members), to have access the Aegean oil deposits.
Turkey asked NATO's suport. The US Foreign minister (State Department) aksed the SAQUER (NATO leader in Naples) to make everything possible that NATO to suport Turkey's invasion.
Every NATO member agreed (the EU members too)...Greece was determined to fight to the end and found a trusted ally in a former enemy and that time a Comminist state , Bulgaria.
The Bulgarian army gathered infront of Andrianople and Turkey stood back.Only then NATO and EU published a paper tha asked both countries to solve their diferences with discusion and negosiations.
The TOP SECRET documents were revealed and published 4 years later.
Conclusions are yours.
There are NO FRIENDS between states and defence organisations, there are interests only.

[bigdaddy1204]

NATO was originally created to defend Western countries against the existential threat, which is no longer present today (aside from Cold War paranoia about Iran and Russia, which is mainly induced by the mass media on gullible individuals). However, it still remains as a Cold War relict, mainly because it makes a lot of money for US military-industrial complex, while putting a huge burden on the US taxpayer.

I completely agree with this post.

NATO is a cold war dinosaur. The modern world needs new alliances, fit for the needs of the 21st century. I'd like to see a complete reshuffle of international relations, including an end to western support for Saudi Arabia, the demise of the Turkish leader Erdogan, the restoration of friendly relations between Iran and the west, and the demise of ISIS. I want to see solid western protection for countries like Poland against the imperialist schemes of Russia. I also believe an independent Kurdistan should be recognised.

[Dromikaites]

@Dromo: Putin doesn't care about Baltics, Putin already got what he wanted: Crimea. About Ukraine: Putin doesn't want American rockets on his doorstep, end of the story. AEGIS? Do you understand Dromeo that if Russia decides to attack Romania, AEGIS or not AEGIS, you would be nuked in few minutes? The same can be said for Germany, Poland & C., France and UK, of course.

Russia can always decide to nuke the AEGIS Ashore. The thing is a nuclear exchange is like a chess game: the succession of moves counts.

The purpose of the AEGIS (both land based and naval based) is intercept the first missiles fired by Russia. Given no country has an infinite number of first wave launches, if enough of those are intercepted, there might be no opportunity for a second wave.

This is exactly why the Russians are so pissed off.

As far as Romania and Poland are concerned, limiting the number of Russian nukes from the initial salvo is their best option. If Russia succeeds nuking the US those two countries are doomed anyway. At least now they can be sure they drag Russia down to hell with them.

[Mangalore]

NATO was originally created to defend Western countries against the existential threat, which is no longer present today (aside from Cold War paranoia about Iran and Russia, which is mainly induced by the mass media on gullible individuals). However, it still remains as a Cold War relict, mainly because it makes a lot of money for US military-industrial complex, while putting a huge burden on the US taxpayer.

People often ignore secondary aspects of NATO.

E.g. all NATO members reveal their defense budgets, military investments and R&D projects to each other. This is how France and Germany both have no reason to suspect the other is running a covert rearmament project. The NATO system prevents that. In a similar vein mutual defense removed indivdiual defense pressures which heightened militarization. Maybe too successfully in Western Europe but after two world wars between highly militarized European countries this is possibly the better option. Also interoperarability means European countries depend on each other more, there are joint operations, joint exercises etc.

That nations still act independantly beyond this framework is because as long as no article 5 is invoked and it only was invoked very loosely against the Taliban, then all nations can act independantly and in their personal interests. The only base agreement is the mutual defense and that main assurance is not article 5 but e.g the US putting US soldiers where they would get killed if someone attacked another NATO member. Some of the reason of putting US, British and French soldiers in Germany were not about keeping Germany down somehow, but to guarantee germany that from minute one other NATO soldiers would be fighting and dieing in germany so none would bug out if germany were attacked. This was an important guarantee so West Germany saw no need to find an indvidual agreement with Russia or militarize excessively herself.

Overall beyond its immediate defense agreement it has far more integration between nations concerning security beyond simply where to invade next or who the enemy is.

[Prodromos]

We're just in a very new phase of the alliance. If we have problems then we'll fix them. In terms of hundreds of years, a few years of incoherent policies are nothing to hyperventilate over. No need to end the alliance. That would be impulsive and shortsighted.