Dissolve NATO

I'm not an isolationist, but the goal of this alliance is preventing Russia from gaining political or economic influence that enables it to impose hegemonic influence on the rest of the world. If the economy, culture, and political landscape of Europe has evolved to extent that this shared policy no longer interests them, there's no particular reason to be in an alliance. The United States should just form a new alliance with the states that are willing to stop a re-emerging Russia or just leave the European corner of the planet to their own devices.

Morality Games said:

I'm not an isolationist, but the goal of this alliance is preventing Russia from gaining political or economic influence that enables it to impose hegemonic influence on the rest of the world. If the economy, culture, and political landscape of Europe has evolved to extent that this shared policy no longer interests them, there's no particular reason to be in an alliance. The United States should just form a new alliance with the states that are willing to stop a re-emerging Russia or just leave the European corner of the planet to their own devices.

Click to expand...

Actually it was formed to defend each other from attacks of any external force but, the US joined for that reason.

Now we have a POTUS who doesn't see us as responsible for that duty.

Morality Games said:

I'm not an isolationist, but the goal of this alliance is preventing Russia from gaining political or economic influence that enables it to impose hegemonic influence on the rest of the world. If the economy, culture, and political landscape of Europe has evolved to extent that this shared policy no longer interests them, there's no particular reason to be in an alliance. The United States should just form a new alliance with the states that are willing to stop a re-emerging Russia or just leave the European corner of the planet to their own devices.

Click to expand...

You make good points, however, the NATO treaty allows for more than just taking a military stand against Russia. It allows for mutual assurance of protection from aggression toward its members from any aggressor, not just Russia. It also allows for sharing of training, technology and assets as well as other important factors.

What NATO doesn't do, and was never formed to do, was to project foreign policy of its members, other than military power. Financial sanctions and other foreign policy tools are not part of the NATO treaty, and IMHO, should not be. Each NATO member has the freedom to make its own choices in that regard. Only if and when a member state is threatened by military force or actually attacked does the treaty activate by either Article 4 or more accurately Article 5.

NATO is still viable as a military alliance, which is all it was formed to be.

Maybe a more accurate depiction of your concern would be to project it toward the UN and more specifically the UN Security Council?

Beaudreaux said:

You make good points, however, the NATO treaty allows for more than just taking a military stand against Russia. It allows for mutual assurance of protection from aggression toward its members from any aggressor, not just Russia. It also allows for sharing of training, technology and assets as well as other important factors.

What NATO doesn't do, and was never formed to do, was to project foreign policy of its members, other than military power. Financial sanctions and other foreign policy tools are not part of the NATO treaty, and IMHO, should not be. Each NATO member has the freedom to make its own choices in that regard. Only if and when a member state is threatened by military force or actually attacked does the treaty activate by either Article 4 or more accurately Article 5.

NATO is still viable as a military alliance, which is all it was formed to be.

Maybe a more accurate depiction of your concern would be to project it toward the UN and more specifically the UN Security Council?

Click to expand...

Referring to the bolded section, please explain Libya to me, especially the NATO approved bombing.

Russia is in a long term decline, its population is declining, its industrial base is falling further behind the technological curve. Outside of updates to soviet ere weapon systems they have not really created a new system from scratch without outside help. It is a country of 150 million or so people, that is entirely dependant on natural resource extration for its wealth. It went to France to buy the Mistral ships (which will be Russia's most advanced warships), it has gone to Italy to potentailly buy light vehicles from Ivenco. Its new sub missile is failing to launch properly more often then it is succesfull. Meanings its new subs are being launched without nuke missiles

It will be a power for many years to come, but under current economic and demographic trends it will never be a more then an upper middle power again

I agree. NATO has become a joke and I see no reason for us spending money to defend Germany - as example - given the wealth of Germany (possibly in part for how little they spend on their military). Germany has not joined with the USA militarily - EVER - and we now know treaties and alliances are worthless any way as no one does anything about the invasion of Ukraine.

Morality Games said:

I'm not an isolationist, but the goal of this alliance is preventing Russia from gaining political or economic influence that enables it to impose hegemonic influence on the rest of the world. If the economy, culture, and political landscape of Europe has evolved to extent that this shared policy no longer interests them, there's no particular reason to be in an alliance. The United States should just form a new alliance with the states that are willing to stop a re-emerging Russia or just leave the European corner of the planet to their own devices.

Click to expand...

As a resident and citizen of a NATO country that is NOT the US, I would enjoy a debate on this.

However, you have failed to even investigate the NATO charter, its terms of reference, the interests of countries other than the US or offered a case on why it needs to be abolished other than an uniformed opinion on it's intent, which is in error.

If you can supply some relevant data that at least indicates you know, say, who the members are and what has been their participation I would eagerly participate in a debate.

However I have no interest in doing so where I would have to bring you up to speed on some of the basics, like he fact your NATO allies of Canada and Poland took the worst of the casualties in Afghanistan particularly the Canadians in Kandahar fighting America's enemies.

Yes if that means we don't have to go trucking off every time a president needs a lift in the polls then **** can it, NORAD too, please come and get your Arctic equipment.

sorry, but all nato members have a shared need for security. This means that the EU and other European nato members have the duty to defend an attack on other members. This is a mutually beneficial agreement IMHO and it will prevent the Ruskies from trying to increase their empire through less than legal methods.

joko104 said:

I agree. NATO has become a joke and I see no reason for us spending money to defend Germany - as example - given the wealth of Germany (possibly in part for how little they spend on their military). Germany has not joined with the USA militarily - EVER - and we now know treaties and alliances are worthless any way as no one does anything about the invasion of Ukraine.

Click to expand...

Germany paid the last debt for WWI in 2010. And they still have to pay for WWII.
They can't spend too much for their military.
Their wealth is very good but not enough to feel independent.

DaveFagan said:

Referring to the bolded section, please explain Libya to me, especially the NATO approved bombing.

Click to expand...

GREAT QUESTION!!!

Libya, unlike all the other actions taken by NATO, strained the alliance by stretching the letter and intent of the treaty by a small group of its members (the US only being one of them).

NATO invoked Article 1 and Article 4 of the treaty to act in a way to enforce UN resolutions:

Article 1

The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

Article 4

The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened.

As you can see, although the UN resolutions gave NATO the legal cover to act, it did not give explicit authority to take some of the actions that they in fact did take.

IOW, they were authorized to maintain the no-fly zone over Libya and stop shipping of arms to the conflict by the seas, which was what the UN ordered, to include shooting down any military aircraft that were being used to attack civilians or stop, board and interdict any ships in the Med that were potentially carrying arms or fighters to Libya... But... when NATO took over the entire mission and started air to ground attacks, they exceeded the UN authorization.

When this occurred, many NATO nations backed out of the operation and publicly condemned it; specifically Poland, Spain, the Netherlands, Turkey, and Germany.

The US MSM didn't spend much time discussing this, and when they did, it was slanted toward supporting the Administration and condemning the countries that pulled out.

No.

If anything: Expand NATO!!! And rewrite it`s charta!

In my opinion it should be a military alliance of the free world, which means that it should not allow dictators to join and should offer membership to other democratic nations from arround the world.

Like Australia, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, South Korea, India, South Africa, Indonesia, Phillipines, South Africa and others.

This would not just give it a new goal and reason to exist, but give everyone the satisfaction of seeing a common enemy being scared: China.

The German said:

No.

If anything: Expand NATO!!! And rewrite it`s charta!

In my opinion it should be a military alliance of the free world, which means that it should not allow dictators to join and should offer membership to other democratic nations from arround the world.

Like Australia, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, South Korea, India, South Africa, Indonesia, Phillipines, South Africa and others.

This would not just give it a new goal and reason to exist, but give everyone the satisfaction of seeing a common enemy being scared: China.

Click to expand...

I could agree to this IF an only if the US continues to drawn down it's own military to a purely defensive force. I would then encourage an expansion of NATO as well, such that it's not incumbent of one country to take a primary role of protection, but many countries have skin in the game and would contribute to effectively thwarting an expanding regional war or, the threat of an escalating world war.

Fearandloathing said:

As a resident and citizen of a NATO country that is NOT the US, I would enjoy a debate on this.

However, you have failed to even investigate the NATO charter, its terms of reference, the interests of countries other than the US or offered a case on why it needs to be abolished other than an uniformed opinion on it's intent, which is in error.

If you can supply some relevant data that at least indicates you know, say, who the members are and what has been their participation I would eagerly participate in a debate.

However I have no interest in doing so where I would have to bring you up to speed on some of the basics, like he fact your NATO allies of Canada and Poland took the worst of the casualties in Afghanistan particularly the Canadians in Kandahar fighting America's enemies.

Yes if that means we don't have to go trucking off every time a president needs a lift in the polls then **** can it, NORAD too, please come and get your Arctic equipment.

Click to expand...

There's no need to investigate the NATO charter. Georgia and Ukraine are stress tests for a 21st century policy of military expansionism to compensate for the loss of power that came with grossly abusing their hegemony for half a century. Russia is either going to draw hundreds of millions of people from multiple countries who want nothing to do with their corrupt oligarchy into a "Eurasian Federation" to rival the economic and military might of the United States and European Union or is going to annex their resource-rich Russian speaking lands into its own country (courtesy of the period when Stalin sent Russians colonists in to stabilize rebellious satillites).

If the European Union doesn't care about that, then the United States definitely shouldn't care. We are declining relative to the other countries and need to redirect our resources into places that matter, which is what we were already doing anyway with the strategic shift to Asia. There's no reason to share our resources or technology anymore, because there's no enemy anyone is willing to fight.

It'll be interesting to see how Europe devolves from NATO subscription as it becomes the foremost superpower, following the completion of its project of integration. With that concluded, there'll be no reason for it not to consolidate its existent military capacity, along with its augmentation via the long-proposed European 'super army'. With such a fundamental shift away from US military dominance, along with Europe's long-term focus on matters closer to home, its participation in NATO will become increasingly more untenable. How the rest of the world might react is an issue for them to consider.

Morality Games said:

There's no need to investigate the NATO charter. Georgia and Ukraine are stress tests for a 21st century policy of military expansionism to compensate for the loss of power that came with grossly abusing their hegemony for half a century. Russia is either going to draw hundreds of millions of people from multiple countries who want nothing to do with their corrupt oligarchy into a "Eurasian Federation" to rival the economic and military might of the United States and European Union or is going to annex their resource-rich Russian speaking lands into its own country (courtesy of the period when Stalin sent Russians colonists in to stabilize rebellious satillites).

I would have thought you would have wanted to at least appear to know what you are talking about.


If the European Union doesn't care about that, then the United States definitely shouldn't care. We are declining relative to the other countries and need to redirect our resources into places that matter, which is what we were already doing anyway with the strategic shift to Asia. There's no reason to share our resources or technology anymore, because there's no enemy anyone is willing to fight.

Click to expand...

Thank you for your response.

I will not be responding further since you have not supplied anything to support your uninformed opinions.

Thank you

WCH said:

Actually it was formed to defend each other from attacks of any external force but, the US joined for that reason. Now we have a POTUS who doesn't see us as responsible for that duty.

Click to expand...

Another CON game. What NATO member nation is under attack?

joko104 said:

I agree. NATO has become a joke and I see no reason for us spending money to defend Germany - as example - given the wealth of Germany (possibly in part for how little they spend on their military). Germany has not joined with the USA militarily - EVER - and we now know treaties and alliances are worthless any way as no one does anything about the invasion of Ukraine.

Click to expand...

You need a better rememberer...

Germany and the rest of NATO, invoked the self defense clause after 9-11 and offered to join the USofA in Afghanistan. Rummy and BushII rebuffed them with a rather arrogant, 'Ya'll will just get in our way'.

Later as the arrogant asses got us bogged down in Iraq and the Taliban/al-Qaeda elements grew stronger in neglected Afghanistan the BushII administration welcomed NATO support. German troops made up 40% of the ISAF in the summer of 2003.

We have no defense treaty with the Ukraine. We have no alliance with the Ukraine. The Crimea wasn't part of the Ukraine until the 1950's. Lots is being done about the crisis in the Crimea. Would you have us send our military into the crisis? Are you going to be their advance team and mark the spot they are to land on? :doh

So you are once again standing pretty far away from the truth making bogus statements... I detect a trend with you.

The German said:

No. If anything: Expand NATO!!! And rewrite it`s charta! In my opinion it should be a military alliance of the free world, which means that it should not allow dictators to join and should offer membership to other democratic nations from arround the world. Like Australia, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, South Korea, India, South Africa, Indonesia, Phillipines, South Africa and others. This would not just give it a new goal and reason to exist, but give everyone the satisfaction of seeing a common enemy being scared: China.

Click to expand...

Actually there once was a series of alliances, CENTO, SEATO, NATO that attempted to ring in the Commie countries. Problem was regional conflict between potential members kept alliances from being more than paper exercises. Our allies are rather small and any real effort would be almost entirely a USofA one in many parts of the world. take our biggest ally in SE Asia, Australia. 30,000 active army troops. I doubt China is too intimidated by anyone but the US, and not so sure about that.

Fearandloathing said:

Thank you for your response.

I will not be responding further since you have not supplied anything to support your uninformed opinions.

Thank you

Click to expand...

This is a debate forum, not a analyst policy center. I'm not sure what you expect.

The German said:

No.

If anything: Expand NATO!!! And rewrite it`s charta!

In my opinion it should be a military alliance of the free world, which means that it should not allow dictators to join and should offer membership to other democratic nations from arround the world.

Like Australia, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, South Korea, India, South Africa, Indonesia, Phillipines, South Africa and others.

This would not just give it a new goal and reason to exist, but give everyone the satisfaction of seeing a common enemy being scared: China.

Click to expand...

We already have a Pacific alliance.