- Joined
- 27 Sep 06
- Moves
- 251103
@no1marauder saidDon't you believe that if
NATO has an irresponsible "open door" policy. In the present climate of fear and hysteria, it is understandable that in countries close to Russia public opinion is shifting away from long held principles of neutrality. But Sweden and Finland add nothing to the alliance and should not be ushered into it particularly when the military chief of NATO is making provocative dec ...[text shortened]... he very least it should stop pursuing policies which exponentially increase the risk of nuclear war.
'everyone' was a NATO member
it would become, sort of, a de facto U.N.?
2 edits
@no1marauder saidThat's quite the exaggeration. Ukraine practically begged to be part of NATO and was refused.
NATO has an irresponsible "open door" policy.
But Sweden and Finland add nothing to the alliance
You already brought up how Finland would have a heavily armed force near Russia's border. That's in addition to having one of the top ten European economies (Sweden) helping to fund NATO.
That's not "nothing".
"Russian aggression" was the reason NATO intervened to dismember Serbia, overthrow Libya's government, and aid the US occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq?
I've already agreed NATO is a warmongering entity. But so is Russia.
How was "Belarus was silently taken over by Russia"? They have allied but I don't see you claiming that Germany or Spain or Norway etc. etc. etc. have been "taken over by the United States".
Not only are Russian troops stationed in Belarus but they previously hijacked a foreign plane to turn over a political dissident to Putin. What U.S. ally would do that?
The best case would be for NATO to disband entirely, but at the very least it should stop pursuing policies which exponentially increase the risk of nuclear war.
You're correct that NATO expansion would dramatically increase chances of war. But if NATO disbanded, do you believe that Russia would stop being a military aggressor?
1 edit
@vivify saidNATO itself says it has an "open door" policy:
That's quite the exaggeration. Ukraine practically begged to be part of NATO and was refused.
But Sweden and Finland add nothing to the alliance
You already brought up how Finland would have a heavily armed force near Russia's border. That's in addition to having one of the top ten European economies (Sweden) helping to fund NATO.
That's not "nothing".
[ ...[text shortened]... es of war. But if NATO disbanded, do you believe that Russia would stop being a military aggressor?
"NATO’s “open door policy” is based on Article 10 of the Alliance’s founding document, the North Atlantic Treaty (1949). The Treaty states that NATO membership is open to any “European state in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area”.
https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2016_07/20160627_1607-factsheet-enlargement-eng.pdf
The Ukraine was never refused entry; in fact, it was promised eventual entry at the Bucharest Summit in 2008:
"NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO. "
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_8443.htm paragraph 23
Finland and Sweden are militarily insignificant. They'd both have to jack up defense spending significantly merely to reach NATO's demand for 2% of GDP being spent on the military (which is a ridiculous waste in and of itself). Being able to mass troops on the Russian border is certainly not a reasonable addition to any goal of NATO and greatly increases the chance of war.
US troops are stationed all over the world not merely in neighboring countries. I see no evidence supporting your claim regarding Belarus.
Russia's "military aggression" seems quite limited to me. They've intervened in adjacent nations primarily to protect Russian minorities and insure their own security (as they see it), though they seemed to want to overthrow Zelensky and overreached. They intervened in Syria to protect an ally and gain some useful naval bases. I simply do not see the threat to the rest of Europe that is being conveniently declared to justify Western military expansion. The war in Ukraine needs a political settlement and should not be used as an excuse for measures that increase the chance for general war.
1 edit
@no1marauder saidYet twelve years later, Ukraine still isn't part of NATO:
The Ukraine was never refused entry; in fact, it was promised eventual entry at the Bucharest Summit in 2008:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/13/us/politics/nato-ukraine.html
NATO Won’t Let Ukraine Join Soon.
Zelensky himself has frequently lamented that Ukraine can't join NATO.
"US troops are stationed all over the world not merely in neighboring countries. I see no evidence supporting your claim regarding Belarus."
How many countries will send a fighter jet to hijack a foreign plane and turn over a political dissident to the U.S. president? What other European nations are currently willing to have Russian troops stationed there? This was indeed a quiet takeover.
"Russia's "military aggression" seems quite limited to me. They've intervened in adjacent nations primarily to protect Russian minorities and insure their own security (as they see it), though they seemed to want to overthrow Zelensky and overreached. "
Russia didn't invade Afghanistan for any of those reasons.
But point taken; most of their recent military operations have in some way involved claims of security or protecting Russian minorities. Perhaps you're right.
@no1marauder saidAt least Russia was not attacked after the US lied to them, like Ukraine was attacked after Russia lied to them.
I've provided this link before, but maybe someone will read it this time:
"U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials ...[text shortened]... u/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early
@no1marauder
So what will your POV be when Putin invades say Poland?
Are you saying you WANT Russia to become the Soviet Union again?
Do you consider Putin to be right in wanting to take over Ukraine?
Do you seriously think Putin will stop at 'just' taking over Ukraine?
Do you care at all Putin has CLEARLY committed war crimes, like attacks on maternity hospitals, school, libraries, and the latest, the train station missile attack where one rocket casing had the words, "For the Children' crudely painted on the side of the rocket?
You care if Zelinsky dies by a bullet to the head? Do you think Z is so much of a threat to Russia, that is to say, Putin?
Are you condoning this war that started in 2014? Do you deny Putin thinks Ukraine isn't even a country?
1 edit
@vivify said"Is this an example of 'aggressive NATO expansion'?"
Question: is this an example of "aggressive NATO expansion"?
Who gets the blame here? NATO or these two Nordic states?
- Russia and the US both have approximately 5000 nuclear warheads. Europe has (in France and the UK) a few hundred nuclear warheads. The expansion of NATO near Russian borders is regarded as a security threat by Russia. Russia warned in 2021 to stop it by military/technical means if required. The Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 is evidence that the Russian threat was credible. In this context, it is beside the point and irrelevant whether NATO's expansion has been implemented using aggressive means or not. The only thing that matters is that Russia is afraid that its nuclear deterrence against the US will be seriously decreased. The situation is similar to that of the Cuban crisis.
"Who gets the blame here? NATO or these two Nordic states?"
- If Finland triggers the third World War in Europe by joining NATO, the Finnish government is stupid and irresponsible, the guilt, however, is mainly on the US.
Only the US can profit from the escalation in Europe.
@no1marauder said“If so, that sure sounds like "aggressive NATO expansion" to me.”
Will Finland agree to NATO "deploying sufficient forces to repel any offensive on NATO nations by Russian troops" on its soil? https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/[WORD TOO LONG]/ar-AAW3QC0?li=BBorjTa
If so, that sure sounds like "aggressive NATO expansion" to me.
Hahaha
No MB that’s the result of aggressive Russian expansion
@eintaluj said“ The only thing that matters is that Russia is afraid that its nuclear deterrence against the US will be seriously decreased. The situation is similar to that of the Cuban crisis. ”
"Is this an example of 'aggressive NATO expansion'?"
- Russia and the US both have approximately 5000 nuclear warheads. Europe has (in France and the UK) a few hundred nuclear warheads. The expansion of NATO near Russian borders is regarded as a security threat by Russia. Russia warned in 2021 to stop it by military/technical means if required. The Russian invasion of Uk ...[text shortened]... , the guilt, however, is mainly on the US.
Only the US can profit from the escalation in Europe.
How exactly does Sweden and Finland joining NATO decrease Russias ability to destroy the world. There is only one reason that these countries have changed their attitude to NATO membership and it’s name is Putin.