Does Nato still exist?

[Mangalore]

The German newspaper "die Zeit" published an intrigueing - if worrisome - article about the internal conflict in the western alliance and draws a bleak picture of wether NATO has a future.

http://www.zeit.de/2008/07/Bundeswehr (German)

The argument is that there are ideological and political rifts between Europeans and Americans or maybe more precisely the Angloamerican countries (UK, US and Canada) and Europe and that the thing that kept the security interests of all NATO members aligned for 60 years were not some lofty ideas but the very real statistics about the military might of the Warsaw Pact. As this common threat is gone various countries evaluate their security situation entirely differently. The US deems military operations necessary to achieve peace at home while in European countries the simple perception is that US military actions have deterioated the security situation in those countries.

Similarily the perception of terrorism by the US is that it is a military problem, in Europe most countries consider it an internal problem.

Additionally in my view NATO is ironically hollowed by a development the US wants the EU to make: That is that Europe builds its military up. But if Europe does that it is very certain that most EU countries will rather have it under some unified EU command than under the high command of the USA if they decide to have it under someone else's command at all. This means that most likely any step that emancipates the EU militarily and makes her more powerful will spawn a further desire to change the current setup of NATO where the US fills all the key points in the command structure simply because they are the biggest and strongest contributor.

I believe NATO should be preserved but I also believe the EU has to establish a European pillar in this alliance and I fear that if she does that the alliance might fall apart because the current organization is not made for a bipolar hierarchy. European-American antagonism is imo so strong because we are so close. In contrast to other cultures/continents Europeans and Americans bicker about each other precisely because they expect the other to be precisely the one people on Earth who should have the same worldview and ... they don't.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Well... thing is.. it's not Europe, is it? It's Germany and France. The Netherlands is fighting heavily in Afghanistan, Turkey has a large contribution. Ideally Germany and France need to get more involved as soon as possible, but the USA also needs to cut back on the feudal rhetoric which has caused such diplomatic trouble recently.

[Mangalore]

Well... thing is.. it's not Europe, is it? It's Germany and France. The Netherlands is fighting heavily in Afghanistan, Turkey has a large contribution. Ideally Germany and France need to get more involved as soon as possible, but the USA also needs to cut back on the feudal rhetoric which has caused such diplomatic trouble recently.

The issue is not about Afghanistan but pretty much every single issue of international interest where the EU and the US are involved. Basically the US shuns NATO involvement until it doesn't work any other way and in the peacekeeping missions in Africa the EU shuns the US and NATO if they can somehow pull it off on their own.

[Каие]

Well... thing is.. it's not Europe, is it? It's Germany and France. The Netherlands is fighting heavily in Afghanistan, Turkey has a large contribution. Ideally Germany and France need to get more involved as soon as possible, but the USA also needs to cut back on the feudal rhetoric which has caused such diplomatic trouble recently.

Why am i not surprised Germany and France? Always when there is a problem which includes European countries its always them....tsk..tsk....Barbarian Invasions of Rome, Crusades, Hundred years war, Holy Roman Empire, Protestantism, Cathars, Napoleon, Canada, Africa, Franco-Prussian War, WW1, WW2...Afghanistan, EU, Freedom of Speech/Expression....

[wilpuri]

Why am i not surprised Germany and France? Always when there is a problem which includes European countries its always them....tsk..tsk....Barbarian Invasions of Rome, Crusades, Hundred years war, Holy Roman Empire, Protestantism, Cathars, Napoleon, Canada, Africa, Franco-Prussian War, WW1, WW2...Afghanistan, EU, Freedom of Speech/Expression....

An odd list of problems. Is there are common theme or perspective? Whose problem is the EU? Protestantism? Freedom of Expression?

American foreign policy is the problem of our age and fortunately France and Germany aren't taking part in it.

[Enemy of the State]

what the Soviets brought back was socialism and equality for all.

What the Soviets brought was poverty for all besides a small elite class. I think the slogan in Animal Farm fits well here.

All people are equal, but some people are more equal than others.

the winner takes all and gets to re-write history, as usual.

Like the Soviet Union did?

[Каие]

An odd list of problems. Is there are common theme or perspective? Whose problem is the EU? Protestantism? Freedom of Expression?

Common theme, France and Germany are involved.

Protestantism: German Luther and French Calvin.

EU: Originally a trade union agreement with France and Germany and Belgium over their mineral and resource rich border the Rhineland and Strasbourg.

Freedom of Expression: Ban on Holocaust revisionism, ban on Nazi symbols. French ban of Armenian Genocide revisionism, holocaust revisionism and french historical revisionism.

American foreign policy is the problem of our age and fortunately France and Germany aren't taking part in it.

NATO?

[Panzerbear]

nothing that I would consider big news, either way.

I think by now it is quite obvious that it is not post-WW2 period any more and certain countries already outgrew their current (dependent) state. that being said, it is not a suprise to me that, lets say, Germans and French are willing to put together a European army and take leading place in it.

I personally wouldnt mind that Europe will have its own army (now that they have their own integrated Economy, they might as well go for it). they should emerge as a separate entity from NATO and should be able to command themselves and not by American generals, pursue their own goals and agendas.

this way the security situation in Europe will dramatically improve. It will no longer be [Russia vs NATO] struggle, but more like [Russia vs American Alliance vs European Union]. the ability for Europeans to negoiate their own security treaties would be priceless for all sides, especially since Russia does not see Europe as a threat.

[Duke_of_Bavaria]

especially since Russia does not see Europe as a threat.

And they see America as a threath?
With all the nukes you have you shouldn't see any nation as a threath. Corruption and terrorists are way more dangerous. And maybe China in 50 years.

[Panzerbear]

And they see America as a threath?
With all the nukes you have you shouldn't see any nation as a threath. Corruption and terrorists are way more dangerous. And maybe China in 50 years.

Russia currently sees three main security threats.

1) Expansion of NATO to the Eastern Europe and building US military bases next to Russia's Western borders.

2) Unstable muslim regions in the Central Asia and Northern Caucasus. Russia is a #1 target for terrorists in Europe, its a well know fact.

3) Rapid expansion of China on the Eastern borders. While the current relations can not possibly be any better, we are still very careful. Friendship is friendship, but one has to keep a gun in a pocket just in case things turn sour for whatever reason.

that being said, yes, Russia does consider US as a serious threat. Europe, on the other hand, is viewed in Russia as "good guys" and "civilized, honest people", with who we have broad economic and diplomatic relations... just take France or Germany or whoever. Birtain is the only exception in this case, but we view them more like US allies than part of Europe.

[Carach]

Russia currently sees three main security threats.

1) Expansion of NATO to the Eastern Europe and building US military bases next to Russia's Western borders.

2) Unstable muslim regions in the Central Asia and Northern Caucasus. Russia is a #1 target for terrorists in Europe, its a well know fact.

3) Rapid expansion of China on the Eastern borders. While the current relations can not possibly be any better, we are still very careful. Friendship is friendship, but one has to keep a gun in a pocket just in case things turn sour for whatever reason.

that being said, yes, Russia does consider US as a serious threat. Europe, on the other hand, is viewed in Russia as "good guys" and "civilized, honest people", with who we have broad economic and diplomatic relations... just take France or Germany or whoever. Birtain is the only exception in this case, but we view them more like US allies than part of Europe.

Czar is of course Putin's official spokesman on TWC.

[danzig]

Russia currently sees three main security threats.

1) Expansion of NATO to the Eastern Europe and building US military bases next to Russia's Western borders.

2) Unstable muslim regions in the Central Asia and Northern Caucasus. Russia is a #1 target for terrorists in Europe, its a well know fact.

3) Rapid expansion of China on the Eastern borders. While the current relations can not possibly be any better, we are still very careful. Friendship is friendship, but one has to keep a gun in a pocket just in case things turn sour for whatever reason.

You forgot
4) Because the boogeyman might get us

"civilized, honest people", with who we have broad economic and diplomatic relations...

Whew what a relief cant speak for the Brits but Im happy we americans dont fall into what Russia see as "honest and civilized"....

[Panzerbear]

it is universal common knowledge, not some kind of political statement. geopolitics 101.

[Duke_of_Bavaria]

You know what I think, Czar...? I think you should get over the cold war already.

1. Eastern Europe wants nothing to do with you. They can join NATO if they want and let Americans build enormous dildos inside their borders if they feel like it.
No offense but the Americans and Britts treated the land they "conquered" much better than you did. It's only natural they want to move closer to the west. Hell as it is now nobody wants to be Eastern European. The Batlic countries are all of a sudden Northern European, the western Slavic nations are "Central European" and the rest are south European ...

2. Nobody is going to attack you.

[Panzerbear]

You know what I think, Czar...? I think you should get over the cold war already.

we will, as soon as Americans will do the same.

No offense but the Americans and Brits treated the land they "conquered" much better than you did.

we did not conquer anyone. these countries governed themselves, had independent govts and did anything the hell they wanted, as long as they had the *right* political system. we rebuilt them, fed them, supplied with cheap oil and gas, and at the same time made sure they will never attack us again. all that marxism-leninism BS - nobody seriously even believed in it in Russia.

It's only natural they want to move closer to the west.

from one lord to another. quite natural, given these country's history for the last 5 or so centuries. they have always been merely a buffer between Russian Empire and the mighty Prussia. does that come to you as a surprise that Poles *currently* love Germany and hate Russia, even though both of the countries partitioned their beloved Poland five ****ing times and caused same kind of misery?

Hell as it is now nobody wants to be Eastern European. The Batlic countries are all of a sudden Northern European, the western Slavic nations are "Central European" and the rest are south European ...

doesnt make them any less Eastern European, does it ?

2. Nobody is going to attack you.

as long as we keep maintaining our military in a combat-ready shape, I am confident nobody will have the urge to .

Im happy we americans dont fall into what Russia see as "honest and civilized"....

good. every nation is building up their own reputation with their own actions / foreign policies. US is not exactly viewed as most rational and civilized country even by its own allies. I am sure you look at yourself as if US is the greatest thing that ever happened to this planet, but oh well...

[danzig]

we did not conquer anyone. these countries governed themselves, had independent govts and did anything the hell they wanted, as long as they had the *right* political system. we rebuilt them, fed them, supplied with cheap oil and gas, and at the same time made sure they will never attack us again.

I really need to learn to not click on your posts when drinking something...I almost choked bursting out into laughter. How exactly is you have to have the right political system (aka "ours") as anything other then being conquered? Some pretty impressive distortion there.

good. every nation is building up their own reputation with their own actions / foreign policies. US is not exactly viewed as most rational and civilized country even by its own allies. I am sure you look at yourself as if US is the greatest thing that ever happened to this planet, but oh well...

Actually no unlike you I actually look at my country objectively and dont attempt to make excuses for every hair brain, idiotic action my country has done. I dont excuse or try and spin things like Vietnam, Iraq like you have done with Eastern Europe and Afganistan in the past.

[Panzerbear]

I really need to learn to not click on your posts when drinking something...I almost choked bursting out into laughter. How exactly is you have to have the right political system (aka "ours") as anything other then being conquered? Some pretty impressive distortion there.

the same way you had the *right* political systems in Latin America and Europe during the Cold War. no mentioning of conquering anything and what not .
if you ever had some kind of visible communist uprising somewhere, you supressed it with guns .

Actually no unlike you I actually look at my country objectively and dont attempt to make excuses for every hair brain, idiotic action my country has done. I dont excuse or try and spin things like Vietnam, Iraq like you have done with Eastern Europe and Afganistan in the past.

I do not see how I said anything about Eastern Europe or Afghanistan that can be labled as "spin".

[danzig]

the same way you had the *right* political system in Latin America and Europe during the Cold War. no mentioning of conquering anything and what not .

*cough* as I said I dont excuse or spin it thank you very much, wrong is wrong after all whether its Eastern Europe or central/south America.

I do not see how I said anything about Eastern Europ or Afghanistan that can be labled as "spin".

You did it in this very thread! Anyway I know better than to waste time arguing with you, Hail Putin!

[cegorach]

we did not conquer anyone. these countries governed themselves, had independent govts and did anything the hell they wanted, as long as they had the *right* political system. we rebuilt them, fed them, supplied with cheap oil and gas, and at the same time made sure they will never attack us again. all that marxism-leninism BS - nobody seriously even believed in it in Russia.

WOW !

SIX LIES in one short statement - something quite hard to beat, but I have seen this posted several times already.


But, hell why not - let's destroy every single bull**** I have marked this time.

1. 'governed themselves'

Virtually all of those states seen the new system as something coming directly from asia as the Soviet Union was seen.
Political decisions and not only were OFTEN made in Moscow.
The self-governemtn wasn't very often much different than in a Soviet autonomic republic or region, though it was different in different countries.
Some got it lightly (comparatively) like Poland and others seen a real nightmare of despotic government e.g. Romania.
It could be pretty much similar to the way the Soviets treated its Central Asian republics - they had a decent level of self-government too.


2. 'independent govts and did anything the hell they wanted'
Well - considering that almost every single country seen a massive resistence against thos governments sooner or later and ALL lost power after the Soviets were gone it is pretty much worthless.
Mind that it was NOT only about the political system which was seen (and WAS) as ALIEN and INFERIOR, but about very detailed decision making, though it varied in different periods of time with the Stalinist period being the worse one and Gorbachov's ending the story altogether.


3. 'we rebuilt them'

Poland and Czechoslovakia were given the chance to receive support from the Marschall Plan which didn't happen under Soviet pressure. Poland and Czechoslovakia lost the war compensation from Germany taken by the Soviet Union and replaced by lousy deals and tansfer of lousy technology and ( in case of Poland 5 million volumes of the works of Lenin and Stalin).
The entire stalinist period seen massive frauds in international deals - of semi-colonial character.
Of course not to mention the massive looting in Poland between 1939 and 1948.

In later decades it was still far from equal or fair - industrial goods were often not even paifd for or sold below costs and on incredible conditions for example involving free repair for a period of 10 years regardless how such damages were caused and by who.
Besides - a written word didn't matter much in communism - especially for the Soviet side which usually didn't bother with legal questions at all.


4. 'fed them'

Oh... that is interesting - any details from your side or is the statement so much useful as those above ?


5 . 'all that marxism-leninism BS - nobody seriously even believed in it in Russia.'

Considering the Soviets INVENTED IT and tried to push everywhere they were. Don't you think that pushing useless garbage into other minds is pretty much useless if you don't think it has any use at all ?

There was pretty much ENOUGH effort visable in fighting the local churches, non-communist parties and organisations and ESPECIALLY 'revisionists', 'traitors', 'troskites' and other ideological enemies.

I fact for most of the existence of the Soviet-spawned governments it was the MAIN PROBLEM - the pesky 'heretics' kept showing up here and there all the time for example many of early opposition organisations were former communists who got distaseful and became bitter critics of the entire system moving from communism to the praise of democracy and even CAPITALISM.

In addition in such cases it was usually KREMLIN which made the decision or AT LEAST made HAD TO approve such - which adds more doubts to the points above.

People were killed for that, people were imprisoned for 'heresies' like those
and surely NOT without a reason.

That ideology was the SENSE OF EXISTENCE of the Soviet Union - without it it was a HOLLOW piece of political junk.

Of course the ideology was sick so the entire system had to get the fever in the end, but claiming that the entire thing was something nobody believed in would surely be foolish.

from one lord to another. quite natural, given these country's history for the last 5 or so centuries. they have always been merely a buffer between Russian Empire and the mighty Prussia. does that come to you as a surprise that Poles *currently* love Germany and hate Russia, even though both of the countries partitioned their beloved Poland five ****ing times and caused same kind of misery?

Ehem... A quick history lesson to you - the entire 'buffor zone ' theory was created only less than three centuries ago - mostly by the Russians and Prussians - not that it matters of course -the guys were fully neutral and had not interest in such political concept... hey... wait !

In other words - the theory SUCKS.

You can take that and create an another one instead because the 'always' existed for a short period of time.

Both 'mighty Prussia' and 'mighty Russia' existed much less than the existence of political structures between them.


And the little chat about changing masters and other nonsense is pretty much worthless, though gives more insight into the political ideas of Kremlin i.e. 'if you are not our puppet you MUST be sonmeon'es else's puppet because you cannot have a normal relationship, can you ?' ....

[Panzerbear]

how about we move to the topic of the thread and discuss NATO?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

SIX LIES in one short statement - something quite hard to beat, but I have seen this posted several times already.

cheats! hacks! lies!

1. 'governed themselves'

Virtually all of those states seen the new system as something coming directly from asia as the Soviet Union was seen.

they ideology came from Karl Marx, i.e. a German philosopher. the system itself did not change, besides economy.

Political decisions and not only were OFTEN made in Moscow.

BS. especially since "often" is a relative measure. all big wigs in the communist party of those countries were approved by Moscow, this is true, but after that, everybody was on their own. unless, of course, you are talking about immediate (temporary) post-war govt.

It could be pretty much similar to the way the Soviets treated its Central Asian republics - they had a decent level of self-government too.

so you just agreed with me. thank you.

2. 'independent govts and did anything the hell they wanted'
Well - considering that almost every single country seen a massive resistence against thos governments sooner or later and ALL lost power after the Soviets were gone it is pretty much worthless.

exactly the same way it was in Russia as well. and your point is? just because the new system was forced it doesnt mean that after the system is set in place, it wasnt govt locally by the localls, who did all the decision making.

3. 'we rebuilt them'

Poland and Czechoslovakia were given the chance to receive support from the Marschall Plan which didn't happen under Soviet pressure. Poland and Czechoslovakia lost the war compensation from Germany taken by the Soviet Union and replaced by lousy deals and tansfer of lousy technology and ( in case of Poland 5 million volumes of the works of Lenin and Stalin).
The entire stalinist period seen massive frauds in international deals - of semi-colonial character.
Of course not to mention the massive looting in Poland between 1939 and 1948.

that doesnt take away from fact that both of these countries were extremely damaged by WW2 and were rebuilt with the help of Soviet Union. should I start sending pictures of a typical Polish city, or wtf do you want me to do?
you know yourself very well what I am talking about.

In later decades it was still far from equal or fair - industrial goods were often not even paifd for or sold below costs and on incredible conditions for example involving free repair for a period of 10 years regardless how such damages were caused and by who.

the inefficiencies of command economy have nothing to do with the fact that we helped rebuild your cities.

5 . 'all that marxism-leninism BS - nobody seriously even believed in it in Russia.'

Considering the Soviets INVENTED IT and tried to push everywhere they were.

that is correct. but you are talking about official govt functioners and NKVD vs. wide-scale belief among the masses, who frankly did not give a rats ass.

Ehem... A quick history lesson to you - the entire 'buffor zone ' theory was created only less than three centuries ago - mostly by the Russians and Prussians - not that it matters of course -the guys were fully neutral and had not interest in such political concept...

thanks for repeating what I said earlier.

And the little chat about changing masters and other nonsense is pretty much worthless, though gives more insight into the political ideas of Kremlin i.e. 'if you are not our puppet you MUST be sonmeon'es else's puppet because you cannot have a normal relationship, can you ?' ....

you cant. please enlighten me, what the **** are you doing in Iraq? it seems that your wishfull thinking does not exactly agree with REALITY.