This thread was closed because there are already other thread about the conflict in Georgia. But I think it was going in another direction, one which was worth discussing outside of that conflict.
NATO was founded with twelve countries in 1949. Germany, Greece, and Turkey joined in the fifties and Spain in 1982.
But ten more countries have joined in the last ten years. Two more countries are now scheduled to join and seven more countries are being considered for membership.
Even if none of these propsed memberships go through, we still have reached a situation where the United States is legally obligated to send its forces to defend twenty five other countries if it becomes necessary. (Obviously this applies not just to the United States but to all NATO members.) Has anyone stopped to consider how many potential future conflicts we might be signing up for?
I don’t think in reality NATO of today is the same NATO of yesterday. Communism drove NATO together. I really don’t see anyone caring much if Bulgaria or Romania gets invaded, nor Estonia or Latvia.
Sure we’d grouse and complain, but it wouldn’t provoke the same kind of response if France or Italy or Belgium was attacked.
I think the alliance was really for the purpose of holding Communism at bay in Europe and it did that.
Even today if Russia invaded Latvia or Romania, short of nukes there is nothing NATO could do. The biggest accomplishment was bullying Serbia into givin up part of it’s terrritory. Ironically with the US in Iraq and Afghanistan even that wouldn’t have worked today.
I see NATO as a “paper alliance,” much like Italy’s alliance with Germany and Austria-Hungary was a “paper alliance” before WWII
Really? You believe that the United States would just ignore its treaty obligation (which is legally binding by American law) and let a NATO ally be invaded without acting?
I think you’re wrong but I also think a lot of other people are thinking the same way and that’s the problem. People think of NATO as a symbolic agreement without realizing it actually creates real committments.
Keep in mind that the “paper alliances” you dismissed led to countries getting involved in World War I.
Would be interesting to know where you live. Being from the land of the ice and snow, and not all that self centered, I can assure you quite a few hundred millions would care alot if these European countries were invaded, and it would be a imbecil American president not to care if it happened. Every European president, prime minister, king and queen would, and if one of the invaded countries moreover were a member of NATO, it would not quiet anybody.
I’ll repeat here what I have posted in the Empire thread.
The West had better decide quickly what kind of fence it wants to build and make it clear, absolutely clear, where it is and how strong it is. Anything less than an absolutely resolute and clear message on this will be a signal to Russia that she can rebuild empire at her leisure without fear of any response. The fact that there might actually be a step too far just makes it all the more dangerous.
World War I is ancient history, dude. Just because they made a bunch of interlinking treaty obligations between the European powers then to provide for their mutual defense that eventually brought most of the world to war doesn’t mean it’ll happen again. Right?
