NATO - myth or legend?

[conon394]

Poland is mostly nigh-impossible to defend plains which highly favor the attacker. An Albanian farmer with a heard of sheep would be able to drive a deep wedge though it, regardless of the skill and numbers of the polish army.

It was defensible in 1921 and almost a defensible as France in WW2 [facing a two fronts and after France talked Poland into no fully mobilize]... Sure Putin was a able to pull a fast one in a country that was poor *, unstable, had large section of Russian population that would have asserted in a poll that they would easily join the relatively far more wealth Czar's Russia (also flush with ~$100 a barrel oil at the time).

Politically outside of Serbia there is no Eastern European country that likely to vote for the good old days of Russian domination, Putin lost his oil charge card for now (and with Trump in office certainly US production will expand). That point needs repeating the Russian energy card is flagging - not only have many countries rapidly expanded their LGN capacity things like general EU drive for Green power or Trash burning are making the Natural gas Treat from the Czar less likely to stop even a Trump less NATO.

As long as Germany is and committed to NATO Poland is hardly isolated.

Also any play at Poland (or Finland or Estonia) could loose the Kaliningrad Oblast - what does in gain a man to take a place that does want be Russian and loose a place that is one of Stalin's pride points.

[Heathen Hammer]

Russia doesn't really have to invade anyone, as Western European countries are going out of their way to piss off almost every Eastern European state. Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, list goes on, are quite at odds with either American globalists or the Merkelreich. Current threats always trump (no pun intended) past grievances, and while problems with Russia ended 30 years ago, Merkel and her EUSSR threaten them there and now.

[Gaul]

Sorry for bumping this thread, but I started it more than two years ago. Poland, Baltics, you live by western promises, you die by western promises. And now NATO has days to live. Look local for allies.

The shape of Europe, the world, I cannot picture in two months. I guess we'll know a little more by next week?

[Cyclops]

If Trump seriously tries to dismantle the US's dominant position in Europe then he's an assassin's bullet away from being replaced. NATO serves its purpose which is to project US power in the region and the real billionaires that run the US won't let a reality TV clown cut into their profit margins.

[Gaul]

He's still the man in charge and he will do what he wants to do, we have a year and a half of proof. I prefer to talk about impeachment rather than your comment. Even an impeachment trial would cause uproar with his fanatic, evangelical, lunatic fan base. Actually impeaching him? That would be a very big domestic mess. So now we have (paul ryan and mitch mcconnell) making excuses for the president and and just hoping he doesn't destroy the country before his term runs out. So now we play the waiting game. What comes first, impeachment or two and a half years left on his term?

[Cyclops]

He's still the man in charge and he will do what he wants to do, we have a year and a half of proof. I prefer to talk about impeachment rather than your comment. Even an impeachment trial would cause uproar with his fanatic, evangelical, lunatic fan base. Actually impeaching him? That would be a very big domestic mess. So now we have (paul ryan and mitch mcconnell) making excuses for the president and and just hoping he doesn't destroy the country before his term runs out. So now we play the waiting game. What comes first, impeachment or two and a half years left on his term?

Trump's lack of political ability is plain. Less than half of his silly campaign promises have been kept, some because they were illegal. Most of his successes have been him knuckling down to the swamp, which keeps the impeachment wolf from the door. If he actually tried to drain the swamp? I think the Republicans would impeach him themselves if he actually tried to clean house.

If the Democrats sweep the mid terms you'd think he would be impeached ASAP, but some genius might decide to string him along as a lame duck to give a Democrat nominee a better chance in 2020, instead of giving Pence two years to run in as a viable candidate. The Democrats lost a presidential election to a reality TV clown, so they are capable of almost any blunder.

[95thrifleman]

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.

This myth again, Europe does not buy enough from the USA to make it profitable. The US military-industrial complex makes it's money from middle eastern fear-mongering. Nearly half of all US military exports go to the middle east.

However the NATO countries make a fortune selling kit to the USA.

[LWC]

Ohh oh, is Cyclops from Australia meddling in and theorizing on US mid-term elections? Blue wave, ha, more like a blue mid-nite prostate trickle. Trump's lack of political ability is the reason people voted for him.

BTW, cyclopses have no depth perception due to having only one eye, and in Homer's Odyssey it was put out by Odysseus. So, take care of the non-depth perceiving eye, as there's only one of it.

[The Noble Lord]

[QUOTE=Cyclops;15629813NATO serves its purpose[/QUOTE]

NATO served its purpose, and now it is a relic of a Cold War, same like the remnants of the Berlin Wall, etc.
But Russian obsessed fear-mongering neo-liberal scumbags like John McCain and Hillary Clinton need NATO
as a tool. Like the great job it did in Libya, now that country is an example of NATO's purpose in life!

[Gaul]

Days to live...... I see Trump said "why does the US always have to defend NATO allies?" and "Defending little Montenagro will lead to WW3"


https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-won...132455912.html


But of course, it's all on paper. One for all and all for one.

[conon394]

Ohh oh, is Cyclops from Australia meddling in and theorizing on US mid-term elections? Blue wave, ha, more like a blue mid-nite prostate trickle. Trump's lack of political ability is the reason people voted for him.

BTW, cyclopses have no depth perception due to having only one eye, and in Homer's Odyssey it was put out by Odysseus. So, take care of the non-depth perceiving eye, as there's only one of it.

I like the sound of his theorizing and I'm not in Australia.

Trump's lack of political ability is the reason people voted for him.

From my unfortunate home in Red Idaho that is true but than again those people really should not have been allowed to vote. Consider 5 eyes a critical US security alliance for decades and Trump as managed to insult 3 PMs of said alliance. He ikely has failed to insult Jacinda Ardern only because he does know where New Zealand is or its country code to dial up. The damage the fool is doing to the US is staggering. Even a person with one eye can see that.

-------------


@The Noble Lord

Like the great job it did in Libya, now that country is an example of NATO's purpose in life!

A bad intervention does not change the value of NATO to the US in cold hard terms of US power.

Libya is an interesting case. Used as you have used it quick and easy attack on the US. But Gaddafi was going to die some day - you have successor in mind? What civil society democratic election was going to replace him? In addition you wave away the the peak moment of responsibility to protect in International law. A reaction to the non intervention in Rwanda, and G man looked to set to liquidate his enemies in the east of Libya. Is Libya a broken state sure, was intervention managed poorly, sure. But that was Libya anyway as soon as Gaddafi died and Libya says rather nothing about how useful NATO is to the US.

[Winston Smith]

NATO is a good and beneficial organisation and long may it continue.

[Heathen Hammer]

It is good and beneficial maybe if you are CEO of some oil company or weapons manufacturer in US. Other then that, it is a big problem for the rest of the world.

[conon394]

It is good and beneficial maybe if you are CEO of some oil company or weapons manufacturer in US. Other then that, it is a big problem for the rest of the world.

Really can provide a real example? How exactly is NATO a problem for the world? Maybe for Russia but who else. Countries do seem to be in a rush to join. I rather imagine the Dutch like you know the bit about not being stuck between France and Germany and their next grudge match. I am hard pressed to NATO bothering South America.

"weapons manufacturer in US" Quite few of those in Europe as well - so w/o NATO France would what be an unarmed pacifist state?
I missed the bit about NATO members only buying from the US.

[Heathen Hammer]

Really can provide a real example? How exactly is NATO a problem for the world? Maybe for Russia but who else. Countries do seem to be in a rush to join. I rather imagine the Dutch like you know the bit about not being stuck between France and Germany and their next grudge match. I am hard pressed to NATO bothering South America.
"weapons manufacturer in US" Quite few of those in Europe as well - so w/o NATO France would what be an unarmed pacifist state?
I missed the bit about NATO members only buying from the US.

I don't get your point. Are you saying that NATO is the reason that there was no war between France and Germany? You do realize that France wasn't even in NATo for a pretty long period of time, right? I mean you have a right to have that opinion, but I don't think it has any bearing in reality, both politically and economically.
Aside from its usual habit of provoking Russia, NATO's aggression against Libya was what caused Migrant crisis, which resulted with catastrophic results for both North Africa and Europe.
Realistically, NATO should have been disbanded a month after Warsaw pact was gone. Hopefully, Trump's current policies will help end NATO.

[conon394]

I don't get your point. Are you saying that NATO is the reason that there was no war between France and Germany?

Yes. One occupied (Germany) and tergrated into NATO so as to not well start a war. And De Gaulle's little show lasted what a 2 years before France was more or less back in the fold

Aside from its usual habit of provoking Russia

Sweet little Russia never provokes anyone? You know there are other shows on TV besides RT

NATO's aggression against Libya was what caused Migrant crisis, which resulted with catastrophic results for both North Africa and Europe.

So all migrants in Europe from Africa are Libyan - wow care to prove that. Aggression? I recall the intervention was based on duty to protect as in it looked like maybe another Rwanda. But even if you distill events to the most cynical basis. How is NATO at fault I am rather sure Italy and France could have found reasons to intervene quite on their own

Realistically, NATO should have been disbanded a month after Warsaw pact was gone. Hopefully, Trump's current policies will help end NATO.

Why? Because you like Czar. Trump's 'policy' is just the asinine rambling of a con man with the vocabulary of 12 year old. His oly policy seems to enriching himself and destroying the position of the US in the world.

Why disband NATO what is your problem with Europe and US and Canada agreeing to collective security? -

[Heathen Hammer]

Yes. One occupied (Germany) and tergrated into NATO so as to not well start a war. And De Gaulle's little show lasted what a 2 years before France was more or less back in the fold

Germany being occupied has more to do with that then existence of NATO, especially given how German military is largely insignificant.

Sweet little Russia never provokes anyone? You know there are other shows on TV besides RT

I don't take my information from TV at all and am quite critical of Putin, but I'm not surprised that people who watch CNN do believe that all their problems are because of Russia and Iran.

So all migrants in Europe from Africa are Libyan - wow care to prove that. Aggression? I recall the intervention was based on duty to protect as in it looked like maybe another Rwanda. But even if you distill events to the most cynical basis. How is NATO at fault I am rather sure Italy and France could have found reasons to intervene quite on their own

It had little to do with protection, since the actual reason was Libyan government abandoning petrodollar. The whole thing about Qadaffi's plan to "kill his own people" was mostly a Western warhawk media talking point (just like WMDs in Iraq before that), with no evidence provided to the public, aside from dubious claims made by "freedom fighting rebels" who ended up establishing Shariah law and slave-markets where they would sell black people.
Objectively speaking, Libya was turned form one of the most well-developed countries in continent to a permanent warzone, all thanks to NATO acting as air support for jihadist groups.

Why? Because you like Czar. Trump's 'policy' is just the asinine rambling of a con man with the vocabulary of 12 year old. His oly policy seems to enriching himself and destroying the position of the US in the world.

Why disband NATO what is your problem with Europe and US and Canada agreeing to collective security? -

Because nothing threatens their collective security to begin with, not to mention that being allies with countries like Turkey defeats the purpose altogether.
Also are you saying I like Putin? The only thing that I like about the guy is the fact that he helped Crimea re-join Russia. Other then that he is basically the Russian equivalent of Theresa May.
As for Trump, I do see him being far more competent then his predecessors, at least when it comes to geopolitical issues, his rather objective stance on US and NATO being a good example of that. At the same time, he is still supporting irrationally hostile stance against Russia and Iran, which hopefully will change.

[conon394]

Well looks like Trump is really planning on breaking all US key alliances

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ing-u-s-troops

What a fool

----------------------------
Delayed follow up

I don't take my information from TV at all and am quite critical of Putin, but I'm not surprised that people who watch CNN do believe that all their problems are because of Russia and Iran.

Not clear on what you think I'm getting at. But from a US perspective and that of Western Europe even if tomorrow Putin retired and Islamic Republic collapsed and Iran invited what relatives the of Shah around to rule in a pro-America - NATO is still a very good deal for all its members I can't see any reason why you would want it disbanded.

It had little to do with protection, since the actual reason was Libyan government abandoning petrodollar.

Really that the silly you are going to roll with - the Petrodoallar. Ha ha ha. That's funny. I mean how ever would the US survive. Gasp a drop in the daily demand for Dollars of some 50-70,000,000 Dollars a day. Gasp the US would just collapse. Even if all oil was traded in some other currency so what? It be a net gain for the US if the dollar was persistently a little weaker.

The whole thing about Qadaffi's plan to "kill his own people" was mostly a Western warhawk media talking point (just like WMDs in Iraq before that), with no evidence provided to the public, aside from dubious claims made by "freedom fighting rebels" who ended up establishing Shariah law and slave-markets where they would sell black people.
Objectively speaking, Libya was turned form one of the most well-developed countries in continent to a permanent warzone, all thanks to NATO acting as air support for jihadist groups.

Libya had been a dictatorship for decades, I find it hard to believe Libya was destined for becoming Norway anytime soon after Qadaffi died or shuffled of somehow. Compare Central Africa NATO did not much in Central Africa but the place still manged to collapse quite on its own. Was responsibility to Protect Abused, it looks that way. Did an intervention without much a plan happen, indeed. But when you look at who was involved I don't see that NATO was the problem. Non NATO states were heavily involved. France was hot to meddle and had the ability to do so all by itself and a long history of post colonial playing in Africa. A confluence of interests and opportunity saw a fair number states jump recklessly into Libya I don't see that NATO in and of itself was cause.

Because nothing threatens their collective security to begin with

Hmm I'm not sure Estonia would agree, or for that matter any former ally of the USSR. It took how long for Yugoslavia to collapse and threaten itself quite a bit.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

@Conon: Trump is certain a fool.

But could you please call his Publius Quinctilius Varus back to US? US needs an ambassador here, not a proprätor.

http://www.tellerreport.com/news/--l...H1nOfmSvN.html

This man is good in uniting Germany with stupid letters.

Mrs Merkel is also not amused.^^

For the Federal Government, security is a great asset, especially in the expansion of the 5G network," Merkel said. "That's why we set our standards for ourselves."

http://www.tellerreport.com/news/--c...Hy2MHIrPN.html

[conon394]

Unfortunately I think he likely has a good point. I would very weary of the Huawei Group. Germany is better off putting together a European wide consortium and build in house (err in Europe) 5G.
Obviously the problem here is Trump has burned up so much political capital with Germany in Public already (particularly with Merkel) that even a carefully worded private request would be rejected. A blunt threat in public might have anyway even if the relationship was just starting but that just goes to the poor quality of Trump (non) diplomacy. In any other administration even a public spat like this might still be walked back but obviously Trump will not, nor care too. It will likely figure in some rambling speech at a ghastly MAGA rally.