Nutty Nancy

I think NATO should be maintained because...

+ It has successfully stabilized Europe since WW2, holding Russia at bay at the same time it bound the west together, preventing Western Europe from fighting each other. Anyone who thinks that we wouldn't be drawn into another European conflagation is fooling themselves.

+ The need for NATO continues with Russia newly aggressive in Georgia and Ukraine and potentially looking to the Baltic states.

+ Abandoning NATO would be globally destabilizing and at least potentially making things unpredictable.

Don

-

n7axw wrote:I think NATO should be maintained because...

+ It has successfully stabilized Europe since WW2, holding Russia at bay at the same time it bound the west together, preventing Western Europe from fighting each other. Anyone who thinks that we wouldn't be drawn into another European conflagation is fooling themselves.

+ The need for NATO continues with Russia newly aggressive in Georgia and Ukraine and potentially looking to the Baltic states.

+ Abandoning NATO would be globally destabilizing and at least potentially making things unpredictable.

Don

-

One problem: Russia "newly aggressive" policy in quite a big part was created by the fear of NATO. Especially considering the NATO expansion to the East, and complete Western indifference to Russia's security concerns and sphere of influence.

Basically, West repeatedly stated that Russian security concerns are of no concern for them, and they have no desire to consider any Russian interests at all. Considering the overwhelming military superiority that NATO have in 1990-2000s, frankly, it is not very hard to understood, why Russians became extremely worried about NATO intentions. Our history, tend to indicate that major military blocks in Central Europe often ends up in trying to invade Russia, you know.

So, the hostile reaction from Russia was essentially inevitable. You should blame your own politics for that -they were so sure that they could just punch a bear around, that they were completely unprepared to the situation when bear raised its claw & threatened to punch back.

P.S.

Yep, he kicked that noble Russian
But it wasn't very long
Before Adolf got suspicious
That he had done something wrong
'Cause that bear grabbed the Fuhrer
And gave him an awful fight
Seventeen months, he scrapped the Führer
Tooth and claw, day and night

(c, from Stalin Wasn't Stallin' by Willie Johnson, 1943)

Dilandu wrote:

n7axw wrote:I think NATO should be maintained because...

+ It has successfully stabilized Europe since WW2, holding Russia at bay at the same time it bound the west together, preventing Western Europe from fighting each other. Anyone who thinks that we wouldn't be drawn into another European conflagation is fooling themselves.

+ The need for NATO continues with Russia newly aggressive in Georgia and Ukraine and potentially looking to the Baltic states.

+ Abandoning NATO would be globally destabilizing and at least potentially making things unpredictable.

Don

-

One problem: Russia "newly aggressive" policy in quite a big part was created by the fear of NATO. Especially considering the NATO expansion to the East, and complete Western indifference to Russia's security concerns and sphere of influence.

Basically, West repeatedly stated that Russian security concerns are of no concern for them, and they have no desire to consider any Russian interests at all. Considering the overwhelming military superiority that NATO have in 1990-2000s, frankly, it is not very hard to understood, why Russians became extremely worried about NATO intentions. Our history, tend to indicate that major military blocks in Central Europe often ends up in trying to invade Russia, you know.

So, the hostile reaction from Russia was essentially inevitable. You should blame your own politics for that -they were so sure that they could just punch a bear around, that they were completely unprepared to the situation when bear raised its claw & threatened to punch back.

I wouldn't argue about that...beyond saying that it was fear of Soviet aggression that led to the formation of NATO in the first place. It remains true that for whatever the reason, Russia's actions against Ukraine and Georgia remain real and stroke fears here that what this is about is recreating the old Soviet Empire.

I can't think of any military block in Central Europe who invaded Russia. Germany really doesn't qualify. That invasion was German with some cannon folder from recently conquered states. Same with Napoleon, really. The Teutonic Knights? I'm not sure. What is true is that Russia has been invaded several times from the West. Up through WW2, Germany was a toothache for everybody...not only Russia. The only successful invasion of Russia that I can think of is from the East... the Mongols.

The nation whose history is truly awful in that regard is Poland who has been invaded and carved up by everybody.

Don

-

Vikings maybe. If you stretch your definition of invade a little.

n7axw wrote:
The nation whose history is truly awful in that regard is Poland who has been invaded and carved up by everybody.

Don

-

Er... you seems to forgot, that for the quite large part of her history Poland - Rzeczpospolita - was an Eastern European monster, that eagerly invaded and carved up all his neighbors. It was only much later, when Rzeczpospolita grew weaker due to archaic feudal traditions, weak central government & exhausting practice of serfdom, only then neighbors started to partition it. By that moment Polish szlachta basically ruined relationships with every single one of their neighbors (due to being overambitious & absolutely unable to realize the actual power balance), so basically no one have any interest in supporting Poland existence.

P.S. And the (fortunately brief) history of Second Polish Republic clearly demonstrated, that szlachta did no change much. In just a 20 years of independent Poland existence, they managed to spoil the relations with literally every neighbor nation, annoy both France and USSR, and eagerly support Hitler in craving up the Czechoslovakia. The partition of Poland in 1939 was the inevitable result of a twenty years of totally-fucked-up international policy.

n7axw wrote: Germany really doesn't qualify. That invasion was German with some cannon folder from recently conquered states.

Seriously?! So, Italy, Finland and Romania were "some cannon folder from recently conquered states"?!

Could you please check history firs?

Dilandu wrote:

n7axw wrote: Germany really doesn't qualify. That invasion was German with some cannon folder from recently conquered states.

Seriously?! So, Italy, Finland and Romania were "some cannon folder from recently conquered states"?!

Could you please check history firs?

I agree I needed to refresh myself, but still...

+ with reference to Italy, I completely concede your point.

+ with reference to Finland, they obviously weren't conquered by Germany. But you need to remember who invaded who...as in the winter war. No wonder they were p.o.ed enough to start marching on Moscow!

+ with reference to Romania, that one is a lot more complex. But I will note that Romania didn't start looking to Germany until after the fall of France and Britain's evacuation from the continent. In fact, she didn't join the Axis until after German troops crossed her frontier. Furthermore she joined the other side once it became clear that Germany was losing. So.o.o, German client state or not? Kinda looks that way to me, even admitting that I am oversimplfying at least some.

+ with reference to Poland, I stand by my point. I'm not trying to say she has no blame.. I'm saying that her history is awful. At point over a twenty year period, she lost a third to half of her population to the devastation of war.

Don

-

n7axw wrote:SNIP
+ with reference to Poland, I stand by my point. I'm not trying to say she has no blame.. I'm saying that her history is awful. At point over a twenty year period, she lost a third to half of her population to the devastation of war.

Don

-

recently re-read Timothy Snyder's book 'Blood Lands' about this very area. Both compelling and scholarly and utterly grim.

isaac_newton wrote:

n7axw wrote:SNIP
+ with reference to Poland, I stand by my point. I'm not trying to say she has no blame.. I'm saying that her history is awful. At point over a twenty year period, she lost a third to half of her population to the devastation of war.

Don

-

recently re-read Timothy Snyder's book 'Blood Lands' about this very area. Both compelling and scholarly and utterly grim.

Favorite quote:

Hitler and Stalin thus shared a certain politics of tyranny: they brought about catastrophes, blamed the enemy of their choice, and then used the death of millions to make the case that their policies were necessary or desirable. Each of them had a transformative Utopia, a group to be blamed when its realisation proved impossible, and then a policy of mass murder that could be proclaimed as a kind of ersatz victory



Two types of socialism at their best.