• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NATO isn't what you think it is

Evilroddy said:
To clear up an unnecessary tangent in this discussion. Neither Western Coalitions nor Russia have been "Carpet Bombing" anywhere recently. They have been using very high intensity bombing and artillery bombardment in places like Mosul and Raqqa but neither of those situations meets the definition of "carpet bombing" by fleets of bombers dropping large numbers of unguided, gravity bombs indiscriminately over large areas of targeted land.

For casualty and death numbers from both Coallition and Russian high intensity bombing see:

https://airwars.org/civilian-casualty-claims/

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

This is where people are easily dupes, carpet bombing is bombing everything in a given area like a carpet covers a floor, if america or russia were carpet bombing the civilian casualties would be in the tens of thousands in a single offensive. In reality is is strategic bombing, which still carries a hefty civilian casualty rate, but does not just bomb everything in a general area, but rather strategic points necessary for the offensive. One other thing in when dealing with urban combat, a strategic bombing hitting a single apartment complex can destroy those around it, even if not intended, that is simply collateral damage, most nations avoid it but in an urban environment no collateral damage is only possible if no offensive occurred at all.
 
Fledermaus said:
Why is stopping genocide a bad thing?
Click to expand...

you know nothing of the conflict only what the Western MSM told you the ...... KLA/UCK (ethnic Albanian terrorists) had been attacking and killing Serbian police patrols and attacked and destroyed Orthodox Serb churches some were over 700 years old .... you see the Kosovo albanians were economic migrants from Albania they were trying to force out the ethnic Kossovars (Serbs) who had lived on the land for 800 years .... how do you think America would react if Mexicans outnumbered european americans in California and declared Independence from america ?? the Albanians tried the same in Macedonia/northern Macedonia and it failed and they are now trying to claim more Serbian territory .... i hope the Serbs give them what for .... the bombing and invasion of Yugoslavia by NATO forced the near 300,000 true Kosovans to leave their homes
 
Godric1970 said:
you know nothing of the conflict only what the Western MSM told you the ...... KLA/UCK (ethnic Albanian terrorists) had been attacking and killing Serbian police patrols and attacked and destroyed Orthodox Serb churches some were over 700 years old .... you see the Kosovo albanians were economic migrants from Albania they were trying to force out the ethnic Kossovars (Serbs) who had lived on the land for 800 years .... how do you think America would react if Mexicans outnumbered european americans in California and declared Independence from america ?? the Albanians tried the same in Macedonia/northern Macedonia and it failed and they are now trying to claim more Serbian territory .... i hope the Serbs give them what for .... the bombing and invasion of Yugoslavia by NATO forced the near 300,000 true Kosovans to leave their homes
Click to expand...

So you are OK with the ethnic cleansing and genocide... Got it.
 
Godric1970 said:
~........................... you see the Kosovo albanians were economic migrants from Albania they were trying to force out the ethnic Kossovars (Serbs) who had lived on the land for 800 years .........~
Click to expand...
where this is wandering off into history and in this case not particularly relevant to the topic of NATO, it is also blatantly untrue. Ethnic Serbs lived well to the North West of the region we today call Kosovo, which from far earlier times than you claim was Bulgarian.

It was briefly absorbed into the Serbian empire in the 1300s and then lost to the Turks. Where it is true that in the middle ages more Albanian speakers migrated from the infertile and mountainous areas of the coast to the more fertile plains further inland, Albanian speakers have lived on the Kosovo plain for far longer than you state.

Kosovo always having been Serbian is a myth.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
They don't have a clue as to how to win a war when the enemy is part-time and refuses to wear uniforms. The guy sniping at you or planting IEDs minutes ago is now 'officially' a non-combatant civilian - just ask his neighbors. The military is not a police force and war is not a series of criminal acts that must be countered as they occur.

We should have learned that very important lesson in Vietnam. You can claim to have won every battle yet still lose the war - taking hill #3452 of the village/province of Ittiybittystan for the third time in two years accomplishes absolutely nothing.
Click to expand...

They know how but can't for ethical reasons or in the other method does not have the manpower for it


One method is the use of concentration camps and or ethnic cleansing to remove the likely opponent's. Either method by the US would see mass public protests in the U.S. as it is now.

The second would require 500 000 soldiers at least. The US can take any land it wants. It can win any battle it gets involved in. It just can not control very much land.
 
MSgt said:
Oh, is that the "only" thing Afghanistan shows?

Back to my point and the issue, Afghanistan also shows that NATO is not obsolete; and as Trump has demonstrated even though his poor coercion abilities, NATO is still a vehicle for American influence into Europe.
Click to expand...

Afghanistan is a quagmire, and NATO is nothing more than a military force- it hasnt united anyone, the EU did that on their own. No European Ive ever talked to has credited NATO with keeping their states together, so Im not buying your theory at all.

Chagos said:
Oh yeah? (with equal respect :)). I seem to remember that IS originated as AQ in lraq, IOW as a branch of a terrorist network that already existed. And I'll come to what you state on that now
Click to expand...

AQ in Iraq was just a label made by the AQ leadership, and no one in the organization ever referred to themselves as such. ISIS started out as an anti-American resistance unit, and wouldnt have existed in such a form without the invasion.

If I read up on OBL I see that his motives were not linked to the staying of US troops but to the fact that they were there at all.

Also, as far as I remember, the West didn't invade Kuwait at the time, it was Iraq.
Click to expand...
It doesnt refute what I stated- Western/US meddling is what led to 9/11, and continues to be the primary factor in Muslim rage against the West.
 
ElChupacabra said:
No, but I do agree with the OP article about the mistakes made regarding expansion. Soviet containment made sense at the time, but it's use as an expansionary tool hasn't helped matters.
Click to expand...

True, but Stephen Walt, the author, is an international relations expert and will see matters through that prism. He may be right that relations might be better had NATO remained fixed (even dissolved). But this is an unintended consequence that has fallen more to a natural course that Moscow helped create.

The unintended consequence of repressing eastern Europe and denying those countries was a forceful push to the West. West Germany was a constant thorn in Moscow's side because of its representation of just how bad life was behind the Iron Curtain. This is why when Gorbachev planted the seeds that wound up cracking the Soviet Union apart, so many of those countries immediately sought to attach to the West.

Moscow has not coped well with losing the Cold War and still sees whatever the West does as aggression upon only it. Because NATO was described as a unified defense organization against the Soviet Union, Moscow still views its existence in opposition. It's also a smack in the face to see former Warsaw Pact countries embrace NATO. But Moscow only emphasizes and legitimizes the expansion of NATO by invading its neighbors (Georgia, Ukraine) and annexing territory. In terms of defense, this is exactly what NATO was argued for in the beginning.

So I don't think it is as simple as declaring that expanding NATO was a mistake. Given the Russian invasion of Georgia and Ukraine, and Moscow's knack for laying geoeconomics with energy, why would those countries not seek NATO's protection as a deterrent?
 
Fishking said:
How did Afghanistan show that NATO still serves a purpose?
Click to expand...

Because Afghanistan is organized as a NATO mission outside of Europe, thereby providing tremendous cover from any accusation of unilateral conduct.
 
Fledermaus said:
So you are OK with the ethnic cleansing and genocide... Got it.
Click to expand...

that is what NATO did in Kosovo

armed groups like the Tigers were akin to the Azov battalion in Ukraine they wanted the Albanian immigrants out of Kosovo just like Azov and the other volunteer battalions want to rid ethnic Russians from South Eastern Ukraine ... the only difference is South Eastern Ukraine was part of Russia for over 250 years and before 1922 the region had never been part of a Ukraine in the Lithuanian and Polish Empire or any other European Empire
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
They know how but can't for ethical reasons or in the other method does not have the manpower for it


One method is the use of concentration camps and or ethnic cleansing to remove the likely opponent's. Either method by the US would see mass public protests in the U.S. as it is now.

The second would require 500 000 soldiers at least. The US can take any land it wants. It can win any battle it gets involved in. It just can not control very much land.
Click to expand...

Hmm... wasn't that (bolded above) the purpose of the NATO alliance?
 
Godric1970 said:
that is what NATO did in Kosovo

<Snipped irrelevant stuff>
Click to expand...

The Yugoslav and Serb forces caused the displacement of between 1.2 million to 1.45 million Kosovo Albanians.

After the war, around 200,000 Serbs, Romani and other non-Albanians fled Kosovo. Please show where the NATO forces forced them out. Considering NATO had practically no troops on the ground.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Hmm... wasn't that (bolded above) the purpose of the NATO alliance?
Click to expand...

AQ would be easy to defeat, the group that attacked the US. Afghanistan did not.
So sending an occupying force to there would be out of its scope
 
MSgt said:
True, but Stephen Walt, the author, is an international relations expert and will see matters through that prism. He may be right that relations might be better had NATO remained fixed (even dissolved). But this is an unintended consequence that has fallen more to a natural course that Moscow helped create.

The unintended consequence of repressing eastern Europe and denying those countries was a forceful push to the West. West Germany was a constant thorn in Moscow's side because of its representation of just how bad life was behind the Iron Curtain. This is why when Gorbachev planted the seeds that wound up cracking the Soviet Union apart, so many of those countries immediately sought to attach to the West.

Moscow has not coped well with losing the Cold War and still sees whatever the West does as aggression upon only it. Because NATO was described as a unified defense organization against the Soviet Union, Moscow still views its existence in opposition. It's also a smack in the face to see former Warsaw Pact countries embrace NATO. But Moscow only emphasizes and legitimizes the expansion of NATO by invading its neighbors (Georgia, Ukraine) and annexing territory. In terms of defense, this is exactly what NATO was argued for in the beginning.

So I don't think it is as simple as declaring that expanding NATO was a mistake. Given the Russian invasion of Georgia and Ukraine, and Moscow's knack for laying geoeconomics with energy, why would those countries not seek NATO's protection as a deterrent?
Click to expand...

Well I think that's the interesting aspect of having Putin in power because he's interested in Russia's ascendancy to a world power and has been testing the limits through his actions. I do agree with you that it isn't as simple as expansion alone through the incorporation of former Soviet satellites, but the military build up in bordering nations are what I am a bit more skeptical about. I'm not of the mindset that NATO is obsolete though.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
AQ would be easy to defeat, the group that attacked the US. Afghanistan did not.
So sending an occupying force to there would be out of its scope
Click to expand...

I disagree. AQ is based on resisting foreign (western?) interference/presence in the region. Adding any NATO forces to the region thus serves to increase AQ support/membership. The problem with AQ (or almost any gang/cartel) is that they can thrive anywhere unless serious local resistance exists.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
They know how but can't for ethical reasons or in the other method does not have the manpower for it


One method is the use of concentration camps and or ethnic cleansing to remove the likely opponent's. Either method by the US would see mass public protests in the U.S. as it is now.

The second would require 500 000 soldiers at least. The US can take any land it wants. It can win any battle it gets involved in. It just can not control very much land.
Click to expand...


ttwtt78640 said:
Hmm... wasn't that (bolded above) the purpose of the NATO alliance?
Click to expand...

Not really.

The situation between 1945 and 1949 involved an overwhelming conventional Soviet force versus American nuclear power. Stalin's plan, if he ever felt that he had to, was to rush western Europe so quickly and with so many Red Army troops that Moscow could hold Europe hostage in order to deter any use of nuclear weapons. The U.S. and all the western European countries knew that if this happened there was nothing to stand in Stalin's way. NATO didn't come on line until 1949, the same year the Soviets happened to have tested their first nuke. After this nuclear "balance" was achieved, Stalin decreased his conventional forces.

NATO, despite its official message of defense, was more an organization that gave the U.S. political influence into western European affairs by funding their militaries. It was because of this political influence that de Gaulle eventually removed France from NATO's military integration in 1967.
 
MSgt said:
True, but Stephen Walt, the author, is an international relations expert and will see matters through that prism. He may be right that relations might be better had NATO remained fixed (even dissolved). But this is an unintended consequence that has fallen more to a natural course that Moscow helped create.

The unintended consequence of repressing eastern Europe and denying those countries was a forceful push to the West. West Germany was a constant thorn in Moscow's side because of its representation of just how bad life was behind the Iron Curtain. This is why when Gorbachev planted the seeds that wound up cracking the Soviet Union apart, so many of those countries immediately sought to attach to the West.

Moscow has not coped well with losing the Cold War and still sees whatever the West does as aggression upon only it. Because NATO was described as a unified defense organization against the Soviet Union, Moscow still views its existence in opposition. It's also a smack in the face to see former Warsaw Pact countries embrace NATO. But Moscow only emphasizes and legitimizes the expansion of NATO by invading its neighbors (Georgia, Ukraine) and annexing territory. In terms of defense, this is exactly what NATO was argued for in the beginning.

So I don't think it is as simple as declaring that expanding NATO was a mistake. Given the Russian invasion of Georgia and Ukraine, and Moscow's knack for laying geoeconomics with energy, why would those countries not seek NATO's protection as a deterrent?
Click to expand...

MSgt.:

Good analysis in principle but your argument has some cause and effect problems which are problematic. NATO expansion occurred for the most part before the Georgian conflict and the Russian seizure of Crimea and intervention in the Donbas. Th expansion happened mostly between 1999 and 2004 with only three additional countries joining in 2009 and 2017. In both cases of cited conflicts calls/threats for both states (Georgia and Ukraine) to join NATO played some role in triggering the hostilities.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Last edited:
ElChupacabra said:
Well I think that's the interesting aspect of having Putin in power because he's interested in Russia's ascendancy to a world power and has been testing the limits through his actions. I do agree with you that it isn't as simple as expansion alone through the incorporation of former Soviet satellites, but the military build up in bordering nations are what I am a bit more skeptical about. I'm not of the mindset that NATO is obsolete though.
Click to expand...

Yeah, military build ups on borders are dangerous. The same is true for military exercises on borders that are meant as threats (South Korea).

In defending the article, I think we need to appreciate a few things:

- Pretty much throughout the twentieth century, Moscow's security concerns involved a "buffer zone" between its territory and Germany.

- Stalin's signing of the non-aggression pact with Hitler, for which he sought to use Poland as a buffer zone, was also about not trusting France or Britain to help if Hitler invaded the Soviet Union.

- Stalin's post-WW II motives were mostly about shoring up local border securities and entirely about strengthening his own dictatorship, not Lenin's global ideals for communist revolution.

- And with U.S. military bases in West Germany and Japan, along with rockets in Turkey, and with political influence in Iran, Moscow saw a developing and continual ring of encirclement that put it on the defense.

So, yeah, the expansion of NATO towards Moscow does invoke those former fears. From the Russian perspective, it was easy to see Western Europe and the U.S. as the aggressors. We can see this from the Chinese perspective too when we consider Japan, South Korea, Formosa (Taiwan), and Southeast Asia. "Containment" was the name of the game.
 
Evilroddy said:
MSgt.:

Good analysis in principle but your argument has some cause and effect problems which are problematic. NATO expansion occurred for the most part before the Georgian conflict and the Russian seizure of Crimea and intervention in the Donbas. Th expansion happened mostly between 1999 and 2004 with only three additional countries joining in 2009 and 2017. In both cases of cited conflicts calls/threats for both states (Georgia and Ukraine) to join NATO played some role in triggering the hostilities.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

True, but this expansion was because eastern bloc nations sought to gravitate towards the West in order to ensure their independence from Moscow. And some began seeking NATO membership only after Russia made its intentions obvious (as in Ukraine). Organizations like NATO and the European Union (1993) eventually offered economic and political incentives, not to mention the idea of security. Russia's actions, such as in the First Chechen War (1994-1996), have been motivating factors for several countries that had memories of similar Soviet offensives in the past.

NATO as causation, in regards to Russia's invasion of Georgia and Ukraine, is exactly the point. Russia uses geoeconomics to remind its neighbors who the regional boss is and merely exploits NATO's existence as an excuse. It uses pipeline diplomacy constantly with threats to shut the energy off, whether NATO is the issue or not. And it uses cyberattacks (such as in Estonia) to punish those who look West for assistance. When these things don't work, Russia has gone to the military. An example:

Ukraine: In 2013, Russia "bailed out" Ukraine with an economic package that made it easier for them to pay and not have to deal with IMF conditions. This pulled Ukraine towards Moscow. Within months, Russia abruptly halted the package because it was also talking to the West. The leverage became clear when Ukraine began struggling with shrinking revenues, rising costs, and spike in foreign debt payments. In 2014, Ukraine's Yatsenyuk Government declared that he had no plans to join NATO in order to appease Russia. However, Russia invaded anyway. So, Ukraine's leading bond holder was now also annexing parts of its territory and stoking militant separatists from within. Parliamentary elections in October of 2014 made joining NATO a priority.

But Russia has proven that it doesn't need the "threat" of NATO's expansion:

Estonia: Joined NATO in 2004. It wasn't until 2007 that Russia unleashed a three-week wave of massive cyberattack just to make a statement and to punish. This act was all over Estonia's decision to move a Soviet war monument from the city center of Tallin to a military cemetery. The attacks involved the websites of parliament, the ministries, political parties, three of the six major news organizations, two national banks, and a major communication firm. By the end, the national security of Estonia had been wrecked. Other countries in the region were quick to pick up on the lesson.
 
MSgt said:
True, but this expansion was because eastern bloc nations sought to gravitate towards the West in order to ensure their independence from Moscow. And some began seeking NATO membership only after Russia made its intentions obvious (as in Ukraine). Organizations like NATO and the European Union (1993) eventually offered economic and political incentives, not to mention the idea of security. Russia's actions, such as in the First Chechen War (1994-1996), have been motivating factors for several countries that had memories of similar Soviet offensives in the past.

NATO as causation, in regards to Russia's invasion of Georgia and Ukraine, is exactly the point. Russia uses geoeconomics to remind its neighbors who the regional boss is and merely exploits NATO's existence as an excuse. It uses pipeline diplomacy constantly with threats to shut the energy off, whether NATO is the issue or not. And it uses cyberattacks (such as in Estonia) to punish those who look West for assistance. When these things don't work, Russia has gone to the military. An example:

Ukraine: In 2013, Russia "bailed out" Ukraine with an economic package that made it easier for them to pay and not have to deal with IMF conditions. This pulled Ukraine towards Moscow. Within months, Russia abruptly halted the package because it was also talking to the West. The leverage became clear when Ukraine began struggling with shrinking revenues, rising costs, and spike in foreign debt payments. In 2014, Ukraine's Yatsenyuk Government declared that he had no plans to join NATO in order to appease Russia. However, Russia invaded anyway. So, Ukraine's leading bond holder was now also annexing parts of its territory and stoking militant separatists from within. Parliamentary elections in October of 2014 made joining NATO a priority.

But Russia has proven that it doesn't need the "threat" of NATO's expansion:

Estonia: Joined NATO in 2004. It wasn't until 2007 that Russia unleashed a three-week wave of massive cyberattack just to make a statement and to punish. This act was all over Estonia's decision to move a Soviet war monument from the city center of Tallin to a military cemetery. The attacks involved the websites of parliament, the ministries, political parties, three of the six major news organizations, two national banks, and a major communication firm. By the end, the national security of Estonia had been wrecked. Other countries in the region were quick to pick up on the lesson.
Click to expand...

I'll add to that Russia's more notable cyberattacks on Ukraine. A focused attack in December 2015 taking down many sectors of the Ukraine electric grid, and a massive Ransomware attack in June 2017 that shut many banks down for over a week.
 
MSgt said:
True, but this expansion was because eastern bloc nations sought to gravitate towards the West in order to ensure their independence from Moscow. And some began seeking NATO membership only after Russia made its intentions obvious (as in Ukraine). Organizations like NATO and the European Union (1993) eventually offered economic and political incentives, not to mention the idea of security. Russia's actions, such as in the First Chechen War (1994-1996), have been motivating factors for several countries that had memories of similar Soviet offensives in the past.

NATO as causation, in regards to Russia's invasion of Georgia and Ukraine, is exactly the point. Russia uses geoeconomics to remind its neighbors who the regional boss is and merely exploits NATO's existence as an excuse. It uses pipeline diplomacy constantly with threats to shut the energy off, whether NATO is the issue or not. And it uses cyberattacks (such as in Estonia) to punish those who look West for assistance. When these things don't work, Russia has gone to the military. An example:

Ukraine: In 2013, Russia "bailed out" Ukraine with an economic package that made it easier for them to pay and not have to deal with IMF conditions. This pulled Ukraine towards Moscow. Within months, Russia abruptly halted the package because it was also talking to the West. The leverage became clear when Ukraine began struggling with shrinking revenues, rising costs, and spike in foreign debt payments. In 2014, Ukraine's Yatsenyuk Government declared that he had no plans to join NATO in order to appease Russia. However, Russia invaded anyway. So, Ukraine's leading bond holder was now also annexing parts of its territory and stoking militant separatists from within. Parliamentary elections in October of 2014 made joining NATO a priority.

But Russia has proven that it doesn't need the "threat" of NATO's expansion:

Estonia: Joined NATO in 2004. It wasn't until 2007 that Russia unleashed a three-week wave of massive cyberattack just to make a statement and to punish. This act was all over Estonia's decision to move a Soviet war monument from the city center of Tallin to a military cemetery. The attacks involved the websites of parliament, the ministries, political parties, three of the six major news organizations, two national banks, and a major communication firm. By the end, the national security of Estonia had been wrecked. Other countries in the region were quick to pick up on the lesson.
Click to expand...

Still you've got problems with your causative argument. NATO expansion almost entirely pre-dates Ukraine 2014. I'm not sure why you persist with it.

Russia of course uses a number of levers to influence the actions of other states. So does the US. Indeed, you yourself have argued that NATO's purpose for the US is partly to coerce the US's EU allies. With its non allies the US regularly tears up agreements (Iran), and uses economic threats, sanctions and other pressure tools. Failing that it simply threatens to bomb them. Russia's real crime is that it acts like the US and too powerful to be bullied by it.

Regarding Yatsenyuk's comment about NATO, he only said this after NATO had made it very clear that Ukrainain accession was light years away. 'Yats' of course was publicly revealed to be the US's pre-chosen puppet of choice.

Regarding the Estonian cyber attacks, the origin has never been proved. As always with the West, it's a case of 'sentence first, verdict later'.
 
Just a fun fact, there was a time in history this union tried to join nato, a union of the soviet type. The year was 1954 and at the time the soviet union was not so scared of nato as it was germany, and the prospect of germany joining nato and re arming itself. The soviet union applied for membership and even offered to let east germany unite with west with the condition germany could not join nato. The soviet union was rejected membership and a short time after germany was accepted into nato, following right after germany joining the soviet union created the warsaw pact.

Kind of funny looking at history where the soviet union was willing to join nato just out of fear of a re armed germany, well I can see why actually with germany being involved in 2 world wars and destroying much of europe and killing millions of civilians and military in russia, and ww2 ending a decade prior to that.
 
beerftw said:
Just a fun fact, ................~
Click to expand...
...........not to mention hilariously funny.

The underlying motive (of the USSR) was of course to exclude the US from having a major role in the alliance. Ultimate goal lying in directing NATO away from defending Western Europe against communism, by creating an obvious strawman in a Germany that to any sane mind simply could not be seen as representing the threat of 10 or 15 years ago.

Molotov knew darn well that his scheme would never find acceptance, seeing how it was akin to a burglar applying for membership in the police force.
 
Chagos said:
...........not to mention hilariously funny.

The underlying motive (of the USSR) was of course to exclude the US from having a major role in the alliance. Ultimate goal lying in directing NATO away from defending Western Europe against communism, by creating an obvious strawman in a Germany that to any sane mind simply could not be seen as representing the threat of 10 or 15 years ago.

Molotov knew darn well that his scheme would never find acceptance, seeing how it was akin to a burglar applying for membership in the police force.
Click to expand...

I would think a burglar applying for a police force would be a good move, hmm I sppose you would be against aushwitz being a local surgeon or michael vick being a veterinarian!!!

Actually though the did have a fear of re arming germany, however their goal was not to control nato, but rather road block it, decisions must be unanimous, so the could block german entrance, and block or veto any other nato moves they felt undermined the soviet agenda.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom