NATO return to Cold War force structure

[Josh]

7 hours ago, ink said:

Clearly the Russians thought it was a threat, otherwise they wouldn't have spent the best part of 25 years complaining about NATO acting beyond its borders, actual NATO expansion, proposed NATO expansion in Georgia and Ukraine, NATO installing missile defence, etc., etc.

Besides, I don't think anyone takes European defence seriously when the US outspends the rest of the civilised world.

And how many Troops does Russia keep on the Finish or Norwegian border right now?

[Josh]

6 hours ago, ink said:

I think, on balance, it was a bit of both.

Looking at how much of a “herding cats” exercise the current NATO Ukraine policy is, it seems pretty clear the alliance could never contemplate an attack on a nuclear power. Russian border policy reflects this reality: they were never militarily threatened by NATO. Even now when their army and ammunition is exhausted, it is simply not a serious concern.

[ink]

8 minutes ago, Josh said:

And how many Troops does Russia keep on the Finish or Norwegian border right now?

That's irrelevant because it isn't that kind of threat.

Why does everyone hear "invasion" the moment someone says "threat"? Doesn't make sense to me.

[ink]

3 minutes ago, Josh said:

Looking at how much of a “herding cats” exercise the current NATO Ukraine policy is, it seems pretty clear the alliance could never contemplate an attack on a nuclear power. Russian border policy reflects this reality: they were never militarily threatened by NATO. Even now when their army and ammunition is exhausted, it is simply not a serious concern.

Ok, I can see that you don't get it. So, let's try it like this:

Let's say China invented some sort of super-duper missile defense shield and managed to deploy it around the world (in space or something, for the sake of argument) so that US missiles had no way of getting through to China should the shit hit the fan.

Let's also say that, at the same time, they had managed, through a slow and gradual process lasting years, to win over Mexico and Canada and we're busy joining them to their military alliance structures (including the above mentioned missile defence thingy and throw in some military bases for fun too) and integrating them into their global economic model.

Let's say, at the same time they were breaching international law to take out "regimes" formerly friendly to the US and replace them with ones that are more China-friendly (I don't know, just for fun, let's say they did that to the UK somehow). All the while, they're playing more games behind the scenes to overthrow other friendly or neurtral governments through popular revolutions and calling them expressions of national will... And, what's more, it's working.

In those circumstances, would you feel threatened?

[Josh]

1 hour ago, ink said:

That's irrelevant because it isn't that kind of threat.

Why does everyone hear "invasion" the moment someone says "threat"? Doesn't make sense to me.

How would you characterize the threat then?

[Josh]

1 hour ago, ink said:

Ok, I can see that you don't get it. So, let's try it like this:

Let's say China invented some sort of super-duper missile defense shield and managed to deploy it around the world (in space or something, for the sake of argument) so that US missiles had no way of getting through to China should the shit hit the fan.

Let's also say that, at the same time, they had managed, through a slow and gradual process lasting years, to win over Mexico and Canada and we're busy joining them to their military alliance structures (including the above mentioned missile defence thingy and throw in some military bases for fun too) and integrating them into their global economic model.

Let's say, at the same time they were breaching international law to take out "regimes" formerly friendly to the US and replace them with ones that are more China-friendly (I don't know, just for fun, let's say they did that to the UK somehow). All the while, they're playing more games behind the scenes to overthrow other friendly or neurtral governments through popular revolutions and calling them expressions of national will... And, what's more, it's working.

In those circumstances, would you feel threatened?

Indeed, though if you subtracted the invincible missile shield, I could live with the rest. And the U.S. has only token defenses against Russian weapons.

I consider Chinese hegemony a worse deal for the world than US hegemony, but if the world decided, of its own volition, to join a Chinese NATO (as opposed to being forcibly added to an alliance Warsaw pact style), then that is the way the cookie crumbles. The US is sufficiently independent in its economics and security to weather that storm. So is Russia.

Put it this way: if everything in your hypothetical happened, do you think the U.S. would invade Canada on the grounds it’s an ex English colony and all the Canadians are just Americans who need to be liberated?

[glenn239]

2 hours ago, Josh said:

And how many Troops does Russia keep on the Finish or Norwegian border right now?

Statements from Moscow seem to imply that Finland has recently gone from zero Russian nukes aimed at it to a metric shit ton.

[ink]

1 hour ago, Josh said:

Indeed, though if you subtracted the invincible missile shield, I could live with the rest. And the U.S. has only token defenses against Russian weapons.

I consider Chinese hegemony a worse deal for the world than US hegemony, but if the world decided, of its own volition, to join a Chinese NATO (as opposed to being forcibly added to an alliance Warsaw pact style), then that is the way the cookie crumbles. The US is sufficiently independent in its economics and security to weather that storm. So is Russia.

Ok, sorry, I made the mistake of making it personal. I should have said, would the elites in the US feel threatened? 

1 hour ago, Josh said:

Put it this way: if everything in your hypothetical happened, do you think the U.S. would invade Canada on the grounds it’s an ex English colony and all the Canadians are just Americans who need to be liberated?

Oh yes, they would certainly invade. The reasoning might be different, something about democracy or liberalism or some such. But they would get involved waaay before there were Chinese bases or anything like that. How do I know? Because the US has a history (a long and storied history) of overthrowing regimes when it suits their interests.

[Josh]

1 hour ago, glenn239 said:

Statements from Moscow seem to imply that Finland has recently gone from zero Russian nukes aimed at it to a metric shit ton.

Exactly.

[Josh]

32 minutes ago, ink said:

Ok, sorry, I made the mistake of making it personal. I should have said, would the elites in the US feel threatened?

Certainly. I suspect they would not resort to using nerve gas against American defectors in Britain, however.

 

32 minutes ago, ink said:

Oh yes, they would certainly invade. The reasoning might be different, something about democracy or liberalism or some such. But they would get involved waaay before there were Chinese bases or anything like that. How do I know? Because the US has a history (a long and storied history) of overthrowing regimes when it suits their interests.

Not sure I’m buying that. Certainly post Iraq/Afghanistan, any war is a hard sell.

[ink]

11 minutes ago, Josh said:

Certainly. I suspect they would not resort to using nerve gas against American defectors in Britain, however.

 

I'm sure that if the tables were somehow magically and unrealistically turned the way I described, they would do that and worse. Don't forget the US reaction to the comparably non-existent threat of international terrorism (I'm thinking here of all those extraordinary renditions, extra judicial killings, illegal invasions, and so forth). Just imagine the reaction if there was a real threat.

11 minutes ago, Josh said:

Not sure I’m buying that. Certainly post Iraq/Afghanistan, any war is a hard sell.

Ok, fair enough. My argument would be that it's a hard sell when there's no danger, but you start scaring people with something that's palpable (see my War on Terror example above) and they'll sign up in their droves. However, I'm willing to concede you know more about subject than I do, so I'll shut up (...for now bwahahaha!)

[Josh]

2 hours ago, ink said:

 

I'm sure that if the tables were somehow magically and unrealistically turned the way I described, they would do that and worse. Don't forget the US reaction to the comparably non-existent threat of international terrorism (I'm thinking here of all those extraordinary renditions, extra judicial killings, illegal invasions, and so forth). Just imagine the reaction if there was a real threat.

the U.S. seems to somehow restrain itself to drone strikes and SEAL raids rather than violating chemical warfare treaties. It seems likely if the U.S. was going to do anything like that, Osama would have been the target. Mostly the U.S. restrains itself to Reaper drones.

 

[ink]

44 minutes ago, Josh said:

the U.S. seems to somehow restrain itself to drone strikes and SEAL raids rather than violating chemical warfare treaties. It seems likely if the U.S. was going to do anything like that, Osama would have been the target. Mostly the U.S. restrains itself to Reaper drones.

Reaper drones, torture and breaches of international law. I guess everyone has their own methods. But it isn't a very high bar.

[Josh]

2 hours ago, ink said:

Ok, fair enough. My argument would be that it's a hard sell when there's no danger, but you start scaring people with something that's palpable (see my War on Terror example above) and they'll sign up in their droves. However, I'm willing to concede you know more about subject than I do, so I'll shut up (...for now bwahahaha!)

I would argue that one of the virtues of less autocratic governments is a greater ability to admit mistakes and allow for correction. It is easy to blame previous administrations for being wrong; it’s not something I would recommend a Chinese or Russian citizen do regarding their state head for life.

[bojan]

If things never change for better, what is a whole point of having "freedom" to complain other than you can say someone had freedom to complain but not power to change anything?

[Josh]

4 hours ago, ink said:

Reaper drones, torture and breaches of international law. I guess everyone has their own methods. But it isn't a very high bar.

I am pretty sure Russia does all of that any given week, if that’s the standard. I personally find their use of chemical weapons inside a NATO country most offensive, since technically they do not have any. There are a lot of ways to kill a person that do not involve nerve agents; using one in the UK is basically you being a gangster and letting everyone know.

And that’s why everyone right up to Russia’s borders joined NATO: because they are intentionally, blatantly assholes when they do not like your politics. US drone strikes do not occur in Europe. They stick to brown people. Maybe that’s racially motivated, maybe it’s strategically motivated, but nobody in Europe worries about being wasted by US drones; they worry a falling out a window.

[Josh]

2 hours ago, bojan said:

If things never change for better, what is a whole point of having "freedom" to complain other than you can say someone had freedom to complain but not power to change anything?

I would never conflate democracy with freedom. Democracy is largely the illusion of choice on most issues. What is more important to my mind is the change over of who is in charge - until recently I would argue that the PRC had a similar renewal of leadership, even if it was not achieved democratically. But the fact that the system was not democratic was exactly what allowed it to be perturbed from its previously quite successful state into largely one man rule. The strength of democracy is not the bullshit concept of freedom, but rather the government turnover that allows for course corrections, IMO.

Edited June 29, 2024 by Josh

[Perun]

[Perun]

 

[ink]

9 hours ago, Josh said:

I would argue that one of the virtues of less autocratic governments is a greater ability to admit mistakes and allow for correction. It is easy to blame previous administrations for being wrong; it’s not something I would recommend a Chinese or Russian citizen do regarding their state head for life.

It's not what we started the discussion about, but yes, I fully agree that it is better to have even the modest choice of a change of personnel. Even in a two party system like the US or UK, where on many things the parties agree*, it is still a huge deal to be able to swap out administrations. I'm a little surprised the Russians didn't "invent" a two-party or two-leader system back in the mid-2000s, to provide an illusion of choice.

 

* This is currently much more the case in the UK, of course, where policy-wise, there isn't much separating Labour and the Conservatives. Not so much any more in the US, though for a long time there wasn't much daylight between the Democrats and Republicans either.

[ink]

6 hours ago, Josh said:

I am pretty sure Russia does all of that any given week, if that’s the standard. I personally find their use of chemical weapons inside a NATO country most offensive, since technically they do not have any. There are a lot of ways to kill a person that do not involve nerve agents; using one in the UK is basically you being a gangster and letting everyone know.

Of course, if it turns out the US backed elements of the Ukrainian intelligence services to blow up Nord Stream, that will have been a pretty gangster move. But that's just speculation on my part.

6 hours ago, Josh said:

And that’s why everyone right up to Russia’s borders joined NATO: because they are intentionally, blatantly assholes when they do not like your politics. US drone strikes do not occur in Europe. They stick to brown people. Maybe that’s racially motivated, maybe it’s strategically motivated, but nobody in Europe worries about being wasted by US drones; they worry a falling out a window.

Of course, the US did plenty of fun stuff in Europe too. Two military interventions, supporting ethnic cleansing, supporting terrorist organisations, the international law rocking move of pushing for Kosovo's independence, extraordinary rendition flights ferrying suspected terrorists to torture in shady third countries, listening in on the leaders of allied countries... And, almost certainly, a bunch of stuff that we don't know about yet.

But we've moved away from the original discussion by quite a long way now.

I still maintain, however corrupt, undemocratic, illiberal, unsophisticated, and downright nasty the Russian ruling elite might be (and they sure look the part from where I'm sitting) it is still not very helpful to simply dismiss the notion that they felt threatened over the last 25 years or so.

[Stuart Galbraith]

12 minutes ago, ink said:

It's not what we started the discussion about, but yes, I fully agree that it is better to have even the modest choice of a change of personnel. Even in a two party system like the US or UK, where on many things the parties agree*, it is still a huge deal to be able to swap out administrations. I'm a little surprised the Russians didn't "invent" a two-party or two-leader system back in the mid-2000s, to provide an illusion of choice.

 

* This is currently much more the case in the UK, of course, where policy-wise, there isn't much separating Labour and the Conservatives. Not so much any more in the US, though for a long time there wasn't much daylight between the Democrats and Republicans either.

Oh, dont you kid yourself. There may be little difference in the STATED policy. There is a considerable difference in what they plan to do when they get in power.

[seahawk]

15 hours ago, ink said:

Ok, sorry, I made the mistake of making it personal. I should have said, would the elites in the US feel threatened? 

 

The US elites feel threatened if they do not get to pocket the largest share of the wealth of other countries. That is why we have a war in the Ukraine.

[ink]

28 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Oh, dont you kid yourself. There may be little difference in the STATED policy. There is a considerable difference in what they plan to do when they get in power.

Not sure who's kidding themselves here 😏

[Stuart Galbraith]

You can either choose to take my word for it, or listen to the Grauniad and Torygraph. Your call.