Skip to main content

Topic: NATO nonsense (Read 7666 times)

  • rjhowie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
NATO nonsense
What a bunch of cold war creation NATO is. It should have been got rid of when the Warsaw Pact lot went. Now troops funnelled into Poland and the Baltic States. When did Russia indicate it wanted to invade the Baltics or Poland? And that clown who is the person in charge of NATO was on television saying how united everyone was. Yet the President of France said publicly that there is no problem with Putin or Russia re France. Greece and Italy said similar - so much for the so-called unity. And the President of the USA came on moaning about how most of the NATO members are NOT spending 2% of their GDP on military.
"Quit you like men:be strong"

Re: NATO nonsense
Reply #50
Quoting Russian propaganda?? And what has America and it's Western go-alongs been doing?  For goodness sake talk about being taken in!
Hardly. You think I don't know that America engages in propaganda? So does the UK. And Germany, and France, etc. If Scotland secedes from the UK, even your country the size of small US state will to some extent. Being the successor to the old Soviet Union, Russia itself a master of propaganda from the coldwar days and I'm afraid you and Krake have taken in.
Russia has NEVER threatened the Baltic States nor places like Poland with invasion but the brained over there in America can be easily influenced and propagated whatever way the controllers want
I don't think anybody actually said Russia planned any such thing. A small Canadian units in Latvia would not even be meant to guard against such a thing. If the US was worried about such a thing, what would we really do? Maybe ground troops in the six figures stationed in the Baltics (you'll need that many to hope to win the opening battles of a war against Russia), plenty of tanks, ships full of a landing force of Marines and Navy Seals, probably aircraft carriers with stealth bombers and state of the art fighter jets. So get real and don't blow a few Canadians of out proportion. Unless something very major happens, the US and Russia have no plans invade either or allies of each other.  Say what you want about either of them, but neither Putin nor Obama are stupid men. Clinton isn't stupid either. Trump actually isn't an idiot either, just delusional and otherwise insane.
Crimea is happy to be back
Of course. Replace the actual Crimeans with Russians and obviously they would want to be part of Russia. That doesn't give Russia the right to occupy and annex another country's territory. That's what happened.
"What kind of man would put a known criminal in charge of a major branch of government? Apart from, say, the average voter."
― Terry Pratchett, Going Postal

Re: NATO nonsense
Reply #51
Okay, I get were the delusion that the US thinks Russia would invade the Baltics comes from. The Rand corporation ran some simulations of what would happen if this occurred (the title is misleading) The conclusion was that Russia could overrun the Baltic states in 60 hours, which is no surprise considering how small those countries are. This not the same thing as saying Russia would do that. Putin knows that an attack on one Nato member is an attack on all, so that would just be the war's start and far from its entirety.

"What kind of man would put a known criminal in charge of a major branch of government? Apart from, say, the average voter."
― Terry Pratchett, Going Postal

  • Belfrager
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: NATO nonsense
Reply #52
Thanks to Germany's repeated attacks against Europe, Europeans have no option but Nato.
All the rest is folklore.
A matter of attitude.

  • krake
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: NATO nonsense
Reply #53
Thanks to Germany's repeated attacks against Europe, Europeans have no option but Nato.
This is an unequivocal acknowledgement to the new world order, coming from Portugal. :devil:

  • Belfrager
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: NATO nonsense
Reply #54
Thanks to Germany's repeated attacks against Europe, Europeans have no option but Nato.
This is an unequivocal acknowledgement to the new world order, coming from Portugal. :devil:
Also the begin of resistance.  :devil:
A matter of attitude.

  • rjhowie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: NATO nonsense
Reply #55
Well belfrager's attempt at the satirical kind of falls flat as Germany is IN NATO. And anyway if Portugal was going to be the new pusher it would have to find some money judging by the state the country is in!

Can I say midnight that the recent military exercise in eastern Europe has been stated as what would happen if Russia invaded and a very obvious part of the NATO deliberate thinking process.  NATO is a hangover from the past and should be dumped and the money saved spent on more important things. Your own people would be helped greatly as a passing example. Leaning on Russia has been as obvious as the nose on the face process and is ridiculous.  All the name calling re Putin is a nonsense and is a lot cleverer than the propaganda nonsense dished out in an attempt to brain people. And as I also emphasised the NATO members are not that keen on the 2% thing are they so a bit of hypocrisy goung on with members.
"Quit you like men:be strong"

Re: NATO nonsense
Reply #56
And as I also emphasised the NATO members are not that keen on the 2% thing are they so a bit of hypocrisy goung on with members.
And a lot of Americans aren't so keen on the US having to spend this much on the military. America gets ragged on because say most Americans might be able to point to such and such country on a map but a European student could, or get out performed on a math test by Europeans and Asians. Maybe it wouldn't be this way of some the resources put toward the military could go to education because fellow NATO members started pulling their weight.
"What kind of man would put a known criminal in charge of a major branch of government? Apart from, say, the average voter."
― Terry Pratchett, Going Postal

  • rjhowie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: NATO nonsense
Reply #57
My country pays it's bit bit I do not see the rest doing that and suggest they are being dragged into a thing and leaned on. One of the few things that Trump actually suggested that made sense was to ditch NATO and just think (apart from coming from him) how good that would be for the economy.
"Quit you like men:be strong"

Re: NATO nonsense
Reply #58
They're not being leaned on and weren't dragged into it. They depend on Nato for their defense. Say what you want about the Rand study showing how quickly some of these countries could be overrun, but as I said, it's nothing that anybody didn't know already and a common sense knowledge of, say Estonia vs Russia, is way they wanted to join in the first place. But as long as Nato exists they need to pay their fair share.
"What kind of man would put a known criminal in charge of a major branch of government? Apart from, say, the average voter."
― Terry Pratchett, Going Postal

  • rjhowie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: NATO nonsense
Reply #59
Getting them to do it is something else no matter the "rules." And the organisation is really part of the US wide military "imperial" thinking so conjuring up situations is part of the  not very subtle ways of maintaining that stance. It is an utter waste of money and no-one suffers more on that front than many, many of your own people because of the background of corporate military business. Time it was ditched.
"Quit you like men:be strong"

  • string
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Forum Staff
Re: NATO nonsense
Reply #60
Does anyone rally think that if NATO did not exist, Putin would not have, by now, "liberated" the Russian-speaking populations from their Eastern European overlords? Unfortunately we need to keep tis alliance.

I do sympathise, however, with US annoyance that Europe is getting their defence on the cheap, It was understandable in the '50s and maybe the '60s but not now.

  • Belfrager
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: NATO nonsense
Reply #61
I do sympathise, however, with US annoyance that Europe is getting their defence on the cheap,
Says the man of the Brexit....
A matter of attitude.

  • rjhowie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: NATO nonsense
Reply #62
Well string Crimea I watched a recent documentary and the population of Crimea is content to be back where they once were. Intereseing comment Belfrager from poor begging bowl Portugal on NATO defence. May I remind him that Gt Britain Brexit does pay the agreed percentage on defence.

"Quit you like men:be strong"

  • OakdaleFTL
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: NATO nonsense
Reply #63
As does Estonia... The "nuclear umbrella" is still something to consider, isn't it? :(
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
No one listens to me as much as I do and even I have my limits...
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman

  • string
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Forum Staff
Re: NATO nonsense
Reply #64
I do sympathise, however, with US annoyance that Europe is getting their defence on the cheap,
Says the man of the Brexit....
Brexit has nothing to do with this but as it happened I was against Brexit.

  • Frenzie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Re: NATO nonsense
Reply #65
I do sympathise, however, with US annoyance that Europe is getting their defence on the cheap, It was understandable in the '50s and maybe the '60s but not now.
I don't. The disproportional US defense spending on which we supposedly "free-ride" is primarily related to US interests elsewhere in the world. A good tear-down of that old canard (which may have had some relevance a decade ago) by a French diplomat can be found here. One of the most important points isn't even brought up until the very end.
Quote
Beyond the sphere of military affairs, the significant diplomatic achievements that Europeans and Americans have brought about together in the past year alone also refute the cliché of the European free-rider. The Iran deal struck in July 2015 was the product of diplomatic heavy lifting on the part of the United States as well as the European Union. Washington pushed Europeans to put harsh sanctions on Iran, but the United States itself had little leverage on the Iranian economy, having had virtually no trade with the country since 1979. In many ways, it was the European choice to back sanctions that made them so effective--and it was the Europeans who bore many of the costs. Likewise, the sanctions on Russia that helped Germany and France broker an imperfect ceasefire in Ukraine in 2015 are economically more painful for Europeans than for U.S. companies. The Obama administration has, de facto, relied on its European allies to handle the crisis created by Russia's annexation of Crimea and intervention in eastern Ukraine.

  • krake
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: NATO nonsense
Reply #66
Quote
The Obama administration has, de facto, relied on its European allies to handle the crisis created by Russia's annexation of Crimea and intervention in eastern Ukraine.
Small correction:
The Obama administration has, de facto, relied on its European allies to handle the crisis created by the putsch of the right sector backed by the USA.
(F*ck the EU)

Crimea's fate and the civil war in eastern Ukraine are the consequences of that putsch and not vice versa.

  • rjhowie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: NATO nonsense
Reply #67
You have well hit things on the head there krake.
"Quit you like men:be strong"

  • string
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Forum Staff
Re: NATO nonsense
Reply #68
I do sympathise, however, with US annoyance that Europe is getting their defence on the cheap, It was understandable in the '50s and maybe the '60s but not now.
I don't. The disproportional US defense spending on which we supposedly "free-ride" is primarily related to US interests elsewhere in the world. A good tear-down of that old canard (which may have had some relevance a decade ago) by a French diplomat can be found here. One of the most important points isn't even brought up until the very end.
Quote
Beyond the sphere of military affairs, the significant diplomatic achievements that Europeans and Americans have brought about together in the past year alone also refute the cliché of the European free-rider. The Iran deal struck in July 2015 was the product of diplomatic heavy lifting on the part of the United States as well as the European Union. Washington pushed Europeans to put harsh sanctions on Iran, but the United States itself had little leverage on the Iranian economy, having had virtually no trade with the country since 1979. In many ways, it was the European choice to back sanctions that made them so effective--and it was the Europeans who bore many of the costs. Likewise, the sanctions on Russia that helped Germany and France broker an imperfect ceasefire in Ukraine in 2015 are economically more painful for Europeans than for U.S. companies. The Obama administration has, de facto, relied on its European allies to handle the crisis created by Russia's annexation of Crimea and intervention in eastern Ukraine.
I don't think I implied that Europe did nothing, merely that is has not shouldered enough responsibility.

Your remark,  "which may have had some relevance a decade ago " encapsulates the essence of my reaction in that NATO goes back many years and, over the years of its existence I really do not think that Europe has done it's fair share, population compared with popultion. It's not just a matter of picking up some ex-Europe examples over the past year where European diplomatic efforts have indeed been aligned with  US policy,. Nor has, for example, Climate Change activities much to do with NATO in this respect. What I am thinking about is the amount of personnel and treasure that Europe has been prepared to supply in support of NATO. There were reasons for it in the early days but as Europe recovered from the WW2 period we have left the US to carry much of the cost.

  • Frenzie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Re: NATO nonsense
Reply #69
I don't think I implied that Europe did nothing, merely that is has not shouldered enough responsibility.
My apologies, I had too much Trump in mind.

What I am thinking about is the amount of personnel and treasure that Europe has been prepared to supply in support of NATO. There were reasons for it in the early days but as Europe recovered from the WW2 period we have left the US to carry much of the cost.
Well sure, back in 1950 that was the case. But for the past few decades it feels more like the US pushing itself on us, even if I do want a European Defense Force and I think it's stupid that the Dutch army sold the majority of its tanks to Saudi Arabia. It's fine, desirable even, if the US were to step back to more of a supporting, advisory role instead of what they've been doing.

  • krake
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: NATO nonsense
Reply #70
NATO - a charity organisation aimed to protect Europe and to secure its wealth?

Short introduction

Hacked emails of the until recently supreme commander of NATO forces in Europe Gen. Philip Breedlove.

Speaking of the until recently supreme commander of NATO forces in Europe Gen. Philip Breedlove - he was just another worthy successor of other illustrious characters like for instance Gen. Lyman Lemnitzer.


  • rjhowie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: NATO nonsense
Reply #71
Basically NATO is purely and simply a not very hidden excuse for trying to hide US military imperialism. Trump for all his annoyances is right about NATO but of course in a wider situation no justification for him!
"Quit you like men:be strong"

  • Belfrager
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: NATO nonsense
Reply #72
I'm very sorry my dear Europeans but NATO it's the only way of protecting ourselves. If it comes with subjection to the USA that's entirely the fault of Germany, France and England.
A matter of attitude.

  • krake
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: NATO nonsense
Reply #73
I'm very sorry my dear Europeans but NATO it's the only way of protecting ourselves.
Protecting from whom and whom do you mean by "protecting ourselves"?
You mean this?
Thanks to Germany's repeated attacks against Europe, Europeans have no option but Nato.
With other words: Because of Germany's repeated attacks against Europe, Europeans have no option but subjection to the USA.
And then this:
If it comes with subjection to the USA that's entirely the fault of Germany, France and England.
Shouldn't you have mentionrd Portugal first, since you are still afraid of the Wehrmacht Bundeswehr? :D

BTW, you forgot to mention Italy among those candidates susceptible to subjection. Wonder why?
Do you consider Italy too irrelevant? However, compared to Portugal...

  • Belfrager
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: NATO nonsense
Reply #74
Are you trying to deny Germany's responsibilities in Europe destruction and the consequent subjection to the USA?
Course you are. The pacifist disguise doesn't last long.

The moment the USA stops considering Europe as a significant asset to their worldwide strategy is the moment you'll see Putin's teeth.
Until then you just see his smiles. Poor lamb that believes in such smiles.

Between American's continuous, repeated and successive errors and Putin's cold efficacy, I prefer the first as the best way to keep Europe surviving. NATO keeps on being necessary for Europe.
A matter of attitude.