NATO vs Russia

[ORAC]

We really do have to modify the NATO treaty to allow expulsion…

https://x.com/noelreports/status/176...HhlFHGKbTPQr_A

​​​​​​​Prime Minister of Slovakia Robert Fico with an appalling video statement regarding the anniversary of the full scale war in Ukraine.

He said the West started a demonization of Putin in hope to get him on his knees, but failed. He furthermore stated that the war already started in 2014 by Ukrainian neo-nazis and also pointed towards NATO 'expanding to the east' which is against Russian interest.

He considers Ukraine joining NATO as the basis for World War III and once again expressed that Ukraine, Russia and Europe need peace and security guarantees by the strongest international players.

[Mil-26Man]

Originally Posted by minigundiplomat

What annoys me is that the Europeans have used the blanket of NATO in order to cut their own defence spending, and in a few cases, cosy up to Russia for cheap energy.

I hope you're including the UK in that blanket generalisation, because we're as guilty of all of that as anyone.

[dead_pan]

Originally Posted by DogTailRed2

If the US pulls support from Ukraine why does the UK still need US bases on British soil?

If the US pulls out of NATO, I'm intrigued how it will support its commitments in the ME and Africa, without access to the likes of Ramstein, Spang, Moron, Aviano, Incirlik, Lajes, Mildenhall etc?

That said, Westie is right about us getting complacent, having had a free ride under US protection for so long. Its about time we stood up.

[West Coast]

Originally Posted by DogTailRed2

If the US pulls support from Ukraine why does the UK still need US bases on British soil?

Sure those bases pump a lot of money into the local economy. If however the British decide the US isn’t wanted, there will be other nations that’ll be happy to have them.

[stevef]

Originally Posted by West Coast

Sure those bases pump a lot of money into the local economy. If however the British decide the US isn’t wanted, there will be other nations that’ll be happy to have them.

It'll save the Americans having to learn to drive on the left.

[West Coast]

Originally Posted by Video Mixdown

We assumed that our transatlantic alliance was about more than just bombs and bullets. We thought it was about shared values, a dedication to freedom and democracy and a rejection of totalitarian and brutalist regimes. If the US can no longer be relied upon to uphold and defend those values it is not a trustworthy ally. Is that where we are now?

On this side we thought the alliance was about pulling one’s share of the collective defense. Yah, those are noble goals, but why does the US have to carry the lion's share of helping Ukraine? This is your backyard.

[West Coast]

Originally Posted by stevef

It'll save the Americans having to learn to drive on the left.

Well, there is that.

[Mogwi]

Originally Posted by West Coast

On this side we thought the alliance was about pulling one’s share of the collective defense. Yah, those are noble goals, but why does the US have to carry the lion's share of helping Ukraine? This is your backyard.

I think that you will find that Russia is pretty damn close to Alaska’s back yard!

Mog

[West Coast]

Originally Posted by Mogwi

I think that you will find that Russia is pretty damn close to Alaska’s back yard!

Mog

The US is equipped to deal with Russia. Can the same be said for Western Europe ability to deal with Russia? I’d suggest no.

[Mil-26Man]

Originally Posted by West Coast

On this side we thought the alliance was about pulling one’s share of the collective defense. Yah, those are noble goals, but why does the US have to carry the lion's share of helping Ukraine? This is your backyard.

The US isn't. Collectively, Europe is carrying the lion's share - go look at the numbers.

[melmothtw]

...why does the US have to carry the lion's share of helping Ukraine?

Arguably, the US has the most to gain from a defeated and diminished Russia. I struggle to see how so many in America seem unable to grasp this.

[West Coast]

Originally Posted by Mil-26Man

The US isn't. Collectively, Europe is carrying the lion's share - go look at the numbers.

What nation has provided the most to Ukraine?

[West Coast]

Originally Posted by melmothtw

Arguably, the US has the most to gain from a defeated and diminished Russia. I struggle to see how so many in America seem unable to grasp this.

Not sure how that argument would pan out. The US isn’t worried about Russia invading Alaska, europe however is worried about Russian expansionism.

[melmothtw]

Originally Posted by West Coast

Not sure how that argument would pan out. The US isn’t worried about Russia invading Alaska, europe however is worried about Russian expansionism.

Uh?? You think 80 years of US policy towards the Soviet Union/Russia was solely concerned with deterring an invasion of Alaska? Such a myopic take, I'm astounded

Originally Posted by West Coast

What nation has provided the most to Ukraine?

I thought this was about collective defence. Collectively, Europe has provided the most to Ukraine (as well it should). The US needs to stand up as 'the leader of the Free World', though. If it doesn't, the ramifications for the US for its standing in the world, its economy, its perception in the eyes of its enemies, etc, won't stop at the Ukrainian border.

[ORAC]

Uh?? You think 80 years of US policy towards the Soviet Union/Russia was solely concerned with deterring an invasion of Alaska? Such a myopic take, I'm astounded

The USA was worried about the USSR as the centre of a global struggle of Communism against Capitalsim - Asia, South America, Africa as battlegrounds.

Russia as a capitalist gangster state, not so much. A risk to Europe, but not the USA.

[melmothtw]

Originally Posted by ORAC

The USA was worried about the USSR as the centre of a global struggle of Communism against Capitalsim - Asia, South America, Africa as battlegrounds.

Russia as a capitalist gangster state, not so much. A risk to Europe, but not the USA.

The notion that any of this will stay within Europe and not have any consequence for the US is as misguided and naive in 2024 as it was in 1939.

The USA was worried about the USSR as the centre of a global struggle of Communism against Capitalsim - Asia, South America, Africa as battlegrounds.

How about Russia as the centre of the Axis of Resistance with Iran, China, and North Korea (all of whom are supporting Putins war effort in Ukrsine for this reason). Is that concerning enough for the US?

[West Coast]

Originally Posted by melmothtw

The notion that any of this will stay within Europe and not have any consequence for the US is as misguided and naive in 2024 as it was in 1939.

Should I expect Russian troop ships to appear off the NY or California coast soon? Russia is a threat to euroland, not to the US.

Originally Posted by melmothtw

How about Russia as the centre of the Axis of Resistance with Iran, China, and North Korea (all of whom are supporting Putins war effort in Ukrsine for this reason). Is that concerning enough for the US?

So now it’s a new fangled axis of evil?

Originally Posted by melmothtw

I thought this was about collective defence. Collectively, Europe has provided the most to Ukraine (as well it should). The US needs to stand up as 'the leader of the Free World', though. If it doesn't, the ramifications for the US for its standing in the world, its economy, its perception in the eyes of its enemies, etc, won't stop at the Ukrainian border.

Collective but unequal defense. Europe has benefitted from the nuclear umbrella far too much and for far too long.

[ORAC]

If you want a past comparison, take 1940/early 1941.

There is a war in Europe, but Congress has no interest in taking part - they’re watching the Pacific and Japan. FDR is struggling to get them to support the UK, but Lend Lease is as far as it goes.

Even when Japan attacked the USA they might only have concentrated on the Pacific - but Hitler made the colossal error of declaring war on the USA and gave FDR his opening.

If Biden is re-elected, China attacks Taiwan and Putin supports them, things might go the same way. But Trump is an isolationist with the Republicans resembling those of 1940 under Wilkie.

[West Coast]

Don’t quite see it that way. China won’t by estimates of those in the know be in a place to be successful in attacking (could attack today, key word is successful) Taiwan for a number of years. Anything short of victory would be the end of Xi Jinping so he’ll bang on his drum until victory is an eventuality and that’ll likely take him past a second Biden administration. Trump isn’t an isolationist, he’s transactional, that would have him in places literally and figuratively not consistent with isolationism. To be clear I didn’t vote for him, and I think he’s an asshole but in certain topics, he’s right.

[Video Mixdown]

Originally Posted by West Coast

Should I expect Russian troop ships to appear off the NY or California coast soon? Russia is a threat to euroland, not to the US.
So now it’s a new fangled axis of evil?
Collective but unequal defense. Europe has benefitted from the nuclear umbrella far too much and for far too long.

​​​​If you don't want to be in NATO and are unwilling to fulfil your treaty obligations stop whining and just leave. Go. An untrustworthy ally is worse than an enemy. At least we'd know where we stand.