Whatever the future is of NATO, let’s just sit back and reflect on America’s message to its allies this week:
“First of all, you need to double or triple your defense budgets, because we’re tired of defending you. Second, Russia ain’t so bad.”
Uh, so why is more defense spending needed, exactly?
I’m very uncomfortable with the idea that America should possibly have to get into a war with Russia over countries like Crimea, Ukraine, various Baltic countries that have always been historically contested territories and part of a centuries-long dispute. Areas like that are always going to be potential conflict zones, but I ask myself, what is Russia actually going to do if they try to annex those territories? Commit genocide? Enslave everyone? If the answer is anything short of that, is a war against the second-largest nuclear-armed world power really worth it?
Does America need to be potentially risking nuclear incineration over these territorial disputes?
It’s my understanding that the Russians actually think they can win a nuclear war. They actually have civil drills where people practice hiding in shelters and shit. Russian military doctrine seems to center around the idea that nuclear weapons will be used as a matter of course eventually. Contrast that to America where everyone has literally “stopped worrying and learned to love the bomb” or more accurately, forget that it exists, unless it comes up in ridiculous political hyperbole.
This shit is real! I do not place much stake in the idea of “mutually assured destruction”, it’s not a theory that I want to see put to the test.
Please note that a sovereign nation is not a “territorial dispute”.
Has the Russian character changed in some major way since the Cold War?
I think NATO is still necessary and American involvement in NATO is also necessary.
Russia under Putin is an expansionist power. That’s a matter of historical record; Russia under Putin has invaded other countries and has made claims to more territory outside its borders.
I think we should not ignore that. Russia is unlikely to directly threaten the United States but Russian expansion would still harm the United States. And American indifference towards Russian expansion would cause other countries to tilt towards Russia in their own defense.
To me, the best way to deter Russian expansion is through a credible threat of military response to such expansion. I feel it’s a lot better to make the threat clear and avoid the expansion than to wait until after the expansion and then have to actually use the force to reverse it. Especially because of the possibility of a conventional war escalating into a nuclear war.
I think that such a threat made by the United States in concert with European countries is more credible than one made by just European countries alone. A more credible threat is more likely to have the desired deterrent effect of avoiding the necessity of a war.
There’s also the issue of setting an example. If the United States is willing to pledge itself to the defense of Eastern Europe, then countries in Western Europe are going to feel more obligated to do the same.
It is on a long enough timescale, and the history of Russia and its surrounding areas is very long. The definition of “sovereign nations” is always changing.
I mean, if Russia declared that they wanted to annex, I don’t know, Latvia, and marched troops into Latvia and declared that Latvia is part of Russia…I seriously want to know what you think should be done about it. Threaten to attack them? Actually attack them? Any military conflict with Russia, in my opinion, is a potential precursor to nuclear war. Is it worth risking a nuclear war over? In my opinion, it isn’t.
I think it’s just more likely to have the effect of Russia poisoning a bunch of Americans with nerve agents, fucking up American technological infrastructure through hacking and sabotage, generally causing chaos, and then initiating a game of nuclear chicken.
You want Russia to be scared of us? Well Russia wants us to be scared of them. And I am. Why the hell do so many people want to restart the Cold War?
I don’t feel like spending the prime decades of my life worrying about myself and everyone I care about being incinerated by nuclear bombs or dying of radiation sickness. Jesus Christ, people.
That’s fine, then you’re against NATO existing. That isn’t an irrational opinion, just one that I strongly disagree with. I say that because of the reasoning you’ve laid out, the Baltics would be just fine under the Russian flag, I assume because you thought they were just fine under the Soviet flag. But the people of those countries, as a whole, strongly disagree, to the point that they sought a multilateral alliance to defend their small countries against their historically aggressive neighbor.
My question fo you is, if you think the Baltics would do just well enough under Russia that you basically are unconcerned about it; do you think Germany would do well enough under Russia (if it came to that) that the U.S. should just let that go as well?
Latvia is a full member of NATO, so what ‘should be done’ is to defend it from any attack. I’d think it would be harder to sell many of the western European nations on doing much, but that’s what ‘should’ be done in the event of an attack on a member state.
Out of curiosity, when should the US push back against aggression and risk nuclear war? Should we wait until Poland is invaded? Sort of a replay of WWII? Or should we wait until it’s Germany? France? The UK? Or perhaps Canada? Where do you want to draw the line?
I don’t think NATO is obsolete. In many ways, it’s more important than ever, as we need strong & unified allies in the face of rising threats from China & the ever-present threats from Russia.
We can’t afford to lose our alliances in trade and military. It’s crazy, but Trump will take us on the path of being isolated, and weaker, as a result. All the more reason he has to be defeated in 2020.
Good point. NATO saved the day on that one! Why, if weren’t for NATO, Crimea would be part of Russia right now.
Well, I’m just not sure. Would they do well under Russia? No, probably not, not compared to how they’re currently doing. The average person’s life would be changed for the worse. But if Russia actually did this, what would America have to do in response?
I seriously want to know what America would do. Send lots of American soldiers to Germany? To do what? Just hold positions there to try to intimidate the Russians? These are uncharted waters…America has only had to deal with wars against terrorists in the past 20-odd years, a form of asymmetrical warfare. We have not had any experience going up against another world power in a military confrontation. What are we supposed to do?
What makes you think Russia would ever want to invade Germany, France, the UK, or Canada?
Remember when I said “disputed territory”? I used that term for a reason. Places like Crimea and Ukraine have always been disputed territory for Russia and have changed hands between various empires over the centuries. It’s logical that Russia would want to annex these territories. It is not in any way logical that Russia would want to invade the countries that you mentioned.
Israel is occupying parts of Palestinian territory in defiance of international laws, should we invade Israel? Turkey is occupying parts of Cyprus that were historically Greek, should we invade Turkey?
It’s worth pointing out that it’s NOT the US and Western Europe poking at things with a stick to see what happens. That’s Russia doing all the poking.
And it’s entirely realistic to think that if not for the totality of NATO backing up say… Estonia, that the Russians might do exactly what they did in the Crimea, or maybe just foment revolution and then send in unmarked troops with a wink and a nod as they did in Ukraine.
It’s not swarms of Soviet tanks pouring through the Fulda Gap that anyone’s worried about today, it’s Russia trying to exert control over former territories and satellite states through various nefarious means up to and including force.
Hell, if nothing else their fucking around in our own electoral process ought to convince anyone of their ill intent. And I can’t help but thinking that being soft on them in years past with the Crimea, Ukraine and Georgia led them to believe that they can get away with it. Does anyone really think that Russian meddling in our elections in say… 1956 wouldn’t have ended with some form of hostilities? But in 2016, it’s ok, and we’re just going to scowl at them a little bit.
The point of NATO is collective defense- it doesn’t really buy the US as much as it buys the Europeans in that regard, but it does buy us access for air bases, etc… and for the European members of NATO, it means that if the Russians (or whoever) starts anything that might need to be resolved with force with any of them, that they’ll have the might and global reach of the US military on their side if it comes to that.
To some degree I don’t even understand the question. If someone attacks a member of NATO, the treaty requires that all other members of NATO go to war against the aggressor. There’s no ambiguity there. If Russia invades Latvia, 28 other countries go to war against Russia. It’s that simple.
You do realize that the strength of the alliance is in deterring war, right? So long as 29 nations hold to their commitments, it’s a powerful signal that Russia will have a very bad day if they invade a member nation. If the 29 nations say, “Eh, well, we have a treaty… but if one of us is attacked, we probably won’t do anything…” means that the alliance is not a deterrent, and perhaps makes war in Europe more likely.
Everyone here should spend a few minutes looking at clips of nuclear explosions on YouTube, or playing with that nuclear blast simulator map thing, and then please keep in mind that both the power and the number of nuclear warheads currently in existence is hundreds or thousands of times greater than what existed back then. It’s unfortunate that we’ve collectively gotten ourselves into this situation, but it’s the current reality, and I would rather that America be on favorable terms with Russia in this situation, than be taking the side of Latvia and Crimea and potentially pissing off Russia against us.
If you’re wondering what should be done if Russia invades Germany or France, well, ask yourself that question when the likelihood of that actually happening seems remotely possible. Until then, my preference is for military engagement with Russia to not happen. There is too much at stake.
They have no right to do so. In fact, it is very, very wrong for Russia to simply claim that they have a right to parts of other peoples’ countries.
And a strong and stable NATO is a deterrent to Russia starting a war. It’s pretty damn clear that NATO has no ambitions on any Russian territory, so the only foreseeable reason for their to be war is Russia starting one.
No it is not that simple. There’s theory and there’s practice. There is no reason to think that it would actually play out the way the treaty “requires.”
Well, disputed since the old Soviet Union days wrt the Baltic states and the fall of the Soviet Union for the Ukraine, of which the Crimea was part of since Stalin’s time IIRC. As those areas broke away from the Soviet Union, however, I think it’s really only Russia that disputes their independence…and only since they were able to begin paying their military again. I’m unsure why, because Russia wants it that way that the US has to play along, though.
As to Israel, they don’t occupy part of ‘Palestinian territory’ in defiance of ‘international laws’. You could make a case that they occupy part of Jordanian territory, though not ‘in defiance of international laws’, but Jordan kind of gave up their claims so it’s a gray area. I’m unsure what your Turkey and Cyprus claim is supposed to demonstrate…I suppose if Turkey gave up it’s claim to Cyprus, Cyprus went independent and then a decade or so later Turkey decided that, no, we actually did want that territory and invaded we would probably have an issue, especially if Cyprus really wanted that independence. I suppose a case could be made, sort of, that Russia has a ‘right’ to keep the Ukraine and Belarus out of, say, NATO, since both were part of the old Russian empire. Not annexation though. But the Baltic states, which is what we were talking about? That’s like saying that Poland should be part of Russia because the USSR conquered and occupied it.
It’s not ‘logical’ for Russia to annex any of these territories…it’s fucking stupid of them. The Crimea has been a drain on Russia, even leaving aside the sanctions and negative international reaction. Russia trying to do the same thing in the Ukraine has been a drain as well, and if they succeeded it would be a huge net negative. Attacking Latvia, which was what you were saying, would be much, much worse for them.
NATO isn’t going to fight Russia, too many nukes.
I’d say it serves a purpose in keeping Europe & America on the same side, if it split, there’d be the possibility for Europe to build up it’s military then we could end up with a 3 or 4 way arms race like before WW1 but more so.
It keeps us notoriously violent Europeans fairly defanged and peaceful knowing that the US has it mostly covered.
It would have been better if the US had listened to the Europeans and behaved more responsibly instead of wasting resources on the Iraqi adventure.
No, I’m not arguing that Europe would be better off without a US-European alliance. Whether it should continue to be use the framework that was used as a Cold War-era deterrent is perhaps up for debate, but the world is clearly better off with international cooperation, rather than international competition.
Unfortunately, those days appear to be coming to a close, and we have nobody but ourselves to blame. The Bush era’s legacy will be the Iraq war and a global financial crisis. The former destabilized the Middle East and caused massive dislocation that spawned a new era of xenophobia and the rise of nationalism in the West. The latter weakened confidence that people have in global economic partnerships, thereby exacerbating nationalism. It’s the perfect recipe for the collapse of democracy and the rise of authoritarianism.