Is NATO done?

Post Reply New Topic

Like I said, the reason for the message is quite valid.

But the method of delivery of the message is where the problem lies.

NATO members should put their "fair share" of effort into keeping NATO running.

The way I heard it, Obama had been trying the velvet glove diplomacy route for 8 years and it didn't amount to anything.

There's a 2024 deadline for all NATO nations to comply with the "2% of their budget" directive.

Sometimes, one has to induce agreement with honey, rather than with vinegar.

Won't it be too late to put a boot Putin's neck and keep him down by 2024?

The U.S. was a laughingstock long before Trump came along, only the majority of you simply weren't aware of the fact.

Why should N.A.T.O. be "kept running" though? What useful purpose does it serve? Its eastward expansion toward the border with Russia since 1990 has been the number one reason for the ease with which Vladimir Putin has convinced the majority of Russians that the mere existence of this alliance represents a very real threat to their country (and it does).

I really do wish those posting here would at least try to appreciate the fact that more invading armies have tried to conquer the nation of Russia than any other nation on Earth. They lost approximately 27 million during World War 2 (compare this with less than 500,000 for both Britain and the U.S. put together), and you can immediately appreciate why they don't like seeing themselves surrounded by hostile nations.

I don't think he's a Russian spy, that takes training and/or social connections most aspies don't have, I do however, think he's been inundated with Russian propaganda to the point he can't tell what's beneficial to his country compared to what's beneficial to a foreign adversary.

Well since we're getting into history, those Baltic nations weren't willing participants in the Soviet Union, hence the reason every one of them wants in NATO, they've lived under Russian rule, they know it's not good for their people. That 'eastward' progression you mention isn't NATO actively seeking new members, it's them reluctantly agreeing to let in members that have clamored for 2 decades to join. If Russia needs to blame any country it only needs to look at itself and its long history of failed rulers and aggression towards it's neighbors.

Judging by the presence of the "smiley-face", can I just assume you were joking? I really hope so, because to attempt to "put a boot on Vladimir's neck" would be the very worst thing that Trump, or any other western "leader", could do in response to (the completely just and reasonable) actions of the Russian President in response to overt and covert western attempts to destabilise his country.

"Those Baltic nations" actually were given the chance to leave the U.S.S.R. shortly before its collapse at the end of 1991, and they did. No coercion was involved back then, and besides, the original reason for the absorption of those states during the early years of World War 2 by Stalin was to provide some kind of buffer between him and the very real threat coming from Nazi Germany at the time. Russia has no need for them, they would be superfluous, just one more ethnic headache to manage for a country that is already multicultural and mutinational to a degree that makes the U.S. look monocultural by comparison.

As for those nations "clamouring to join" N.A.T.O., the people themselves didn't do any of that "clamouring"; their governments did.

Russia isn't seeking "lebensraum". It already has too much land for a country with a population of only 144 million. It has more land than it knows what to do with, so why on Earth would they want to annex the Baltic States? What has the West, in general, to offer Russia? The correct answer, because it is the only answer, is nothing at all.

Why this sympathy for Russia at the apparent loss of sympathy for your own country?

Yeah, great choice: we're about to totally collapse and now that we don't have the power to subjugate you anymore you're free to leave.


Soviet Eastern Europe
Again, learn some history, Stalin and Hitler were allies to start, there was no buffer zone. After Hitler invaded, they were a threat and the Soviets followed the Germans all the way back to Germany. There was no need for them to occupy the territory after the invasion of Germany, none of the states they subsumed and installed puppet governments were allied with the Germans, or the west for that matter. They were just there and the Russians took them, against the wishes of the local populations.


Just absurd rhetoric with no basis or facts. Yes, Russia has several Mongol descendant tribes in their eastern provinces and a few western Asian muslims to the south. That pales in comparison to the genetic diversity of the U.S. which has large populations originating from every European country, including Russia, 15% African descent, 4% Arabic descent, 18% Latino descent, and 11% Asian descent. Insert a quarter and try again.


After 1992, virtually everyone of those states were true democracies and so to 100% accurate: the PEOPLE'S government were clamoring.


Same reason they did it in the first place: siphon the resources from the buffer zone to prop up the Russian state. That's precisely what they did from 1950-1991, hence the reason every neighbor despises them. If there's nothing in the West for Russia to take why have they consistently fought wars trying to topple western nations? That's a historical fact from well before WWII, WWI, the Crimean War and the Great Northern War with Sweden (1700). They've aggressively tried to expand their political influence to other regions since the Rus tribal governments formed 'Russia' five hundred years ago. For not having a lot to offer them, the Russians sure do seem to want the West pretty bad...

Right, not actually working for the Russians but brainwashed by them. I maintain the latter part of my statement. And also it's a cheap way to try discrediting someone.

Have you ever seen Jacoby argue AGAINST Russia? No, every Russian problem is because of the U.S. and it's allies according to Jacoby, that's where my assertion comes from and I stick by it.

Have I ever seen you not argue agaist Russia? How do I know you're not someone who's reasoning has been entirely shapped by anti-Russia propaganda? Who's Russia's biggest enemy, is that who you're in league with? Rhetoric of course, but still.

The Russian's don't deserve much sympathy, not with what they did to Eastern Europe over the last 100 years, but yes there are a few places I think Russia has a legitimate gripe: our funding of Syrian opposition is as much focused on destabilizing the Assad regime as it is fighting ISIS. The Law of the Sea Treaty gives undue influence to western backed nations, some of which don't even touch the Arctic Sea. Georgia should be split in two with the northern half awarded to Russia since it is ethnic Russian and has been ethnic Russian for hundreds of years. There are legitimate issues Russia has, but those issues are not enough for me to overlook the fact that they have a brutal dictator, aggression towards my country and it's allies, and a complete unwillingness to work in a cooperative manner to resolve these issues.