The end of NATO - good for Europe?

[seahawk]

I personally think a quick end of NATO by president Trump would be better than keeping the organisation with a US as the lead nation that is no longer committed to the defence of Europe. So, yes for Europe I think a quick end would be better than a undead NATO.

[Murph]

And I agree with you here.  A quick end, a fast break, and be done.

[sunday]

It is very likely that the OP is trolling.

[R011]

Yes.  The security of a major trading nd security partner doesn't matter to the US.  Europeans never come to America's aid unless the US needs then to, as happened the one and only time when Article V was invoked, and US troops will never need to operate will allies again, so there's no need tp worry about debacles like the naval battles in 1942 and the difficulty working with British troops in Korea.

[rmgill]

Is Europe committed to the defense of Europe? 

If the expectation is that the US is more committed is that then not a problem? 
 

Edited November 26, 2024 by rmgill

[seahawk]

9 hours ago, sunday said:

It is very likely that the OP is trolling.

No, but I firmly believe that a much weaker European replacement is preferable to a NATO in which the lead nation (USA) is no longer committed to honouring the assistance requirements.

[Rick]

10 hours ago, R011 said:

Yes.  The security of a major trading nd security partner doesn't matter to the US.  Europeans never come to America's aid unless the US needs then to, as happened the one and only time when Article V was invoked, and US troops will never need to operate will allies again, so there's no need tp worry about debacles like the naval battles in 1942 and the difficulty working with British troops in Korea.

N.A.T.O. did and is doing what it was designed to do, deter the Soviet Army and its "allies" from going west. Some former Warsaw Pact countries are now N.A.T.O. members and AFAIK, Russia doesn't have any "allies" left from the former Warsaw Pact. I think Russia bit off more than it can chew by invading Ukraine with N.A.T.O. whittling down Russian power with money and equipment. 

Just my opinion, but China is only a "friend" with Russia as long as it only suits China.  North Korea needs money and is willing to have its own people traded for it. Anyone have any information on Russian relations with Belarus and Kazakhstan?

[urbanoid]

33 minutes ago, Rick said:

N.A.T.O. did and is doing what it was designed to do, deter the Soviet Army and its "allies" from going west. Some former Warsaw Pact countries are now N.A.T.O. members and AFAIK, Russia doesn't have any "allies" left from the former Warsaw Pact. I think Russia bit off more than it can chew by invading Ukraine with N.A.T.O. whittling down Russian power with money and equipment. 

Just my opinion, but China is only a "friend" with Russia as long as it only suits China.  North Korea needs money and is willing to have its own people traded for it. Anyone have any information on Russian relations with Belarus and Kazakhstan?

As for the first paragraph, true, thanks to Western support and provided that Ukraine is still supported in the future.

Kazakhstan isn't particularly enamored with Russia, despite Moscow's help in quelling down the unrest in January 2022. They distanced themselves from Russia after Ukraine war, didn't recognize Luganda and Donbabwe (before they were annexed). While they didn't officially join sanctions against Russia their president said they don't want to be used to circumvent them either, they banned certain dual-use exports to Russia and their banks largely complied with Western sanctions in order not to get hit by the secondary ones themselves (same as many banks even in China did). Oh, and they decided they don't want to join BRICS.

All in all they're doing quite a balancing act for a country largely dependent on Russia for its exports (their oil (and possibly gas?) goes mostly through the Russian pipeline system onwards).

They didn't feel particularly safe around their Russian neighbour after 2014, let alone 2022, they fear they might be the target of a 'special operation' themselves.

Quote

A number of Russian journalists and politicians certainly understood Kazakhstan’s position this way, issuing aggressive statements, which the
Russian authorities were always careful to deny. One Russian member of parliament, Konstantin Zatulin, explicitly raised questions about Kazakhstan’s future territorial integrity, stating, “if we have friendship … then no territorial questions are raised. But if that does not exist, everything is possible. As in the case of Ukraine.” The Russian media pundit, Tigran Keosayan, even accused Kazakhstan of “ingratitude” and warned it could “face the same consequences as Ukraine”.

https://ecfr.eu/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Steppe-change-How-Russias-war-on-Ukraine-is-reshaping-Kazakhstan_1.pdf

Quote

During his visit to Berlin in late September, Kazakhstan's President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev said that Astana will "definitely comply" with the sanctions regime against Russia.

https://kyivindependent.com/kazakhstan-bans-export-of-106-products-with-military-use-to-russia/

The Russians are responding in their typical fashion after they don't get their way:

Quote

Russia bans imports of agro-products from Kazakhstan after refusal to join BRICS

...

"Restrictions and bans on imports of crop products and wheat between Kazakhstan and Russia undoubtedly reflect growing pressure on Kazakhstan, although it is not the first time they have occurred," Kuat Dombai, director of the C+5 Centre for Central Asian Studies, told Euronews.

"Previously, Russia repeatedly banned the transit of Kazakh oil through the Novorossiysk seaport under various pretexts of technical failures at the terminal, which coincided with some pressing issues in bilateral relations. More than 80% of Kazakh oil is exported to Europe through it."

What guides Astana's position on possible BRICS membership?

"Kazakhstan has repeatedly stated that it does not intend to violate or to some extent bypass the sanctions measures imposed against Russia in connection with the war in Ukraine, which is in practical terms a very difficult task, given that the country is sharing the world's largest land border of 7,500 kilometres and is in a single customs space with Russia within the EAEU," explained Dombai.

The BRICS meeting is taking place in Kazan while Russian troops are destroying Ukrainian towns and villages. How does Russian military aggression affect relations between Russia and Kazakhstan?

"Kazakhstan has undoubtedly found itself in a very difficult economic situation, falling under the threat of secondary sanctions, traditional logistical chains have been destroyed, and Kazakh society is logically and soberingly aware of the threat of possible territorial claims around the corner."

"Given that after the collapse of the USSR, it was two countries — Kazakhstan and Ukraine — that were signatories of the Budapest Memorandum with guarantees from the West in exchange for giving up nuclear weapons," Dombai said.

https://www.euronews.com/2024/10/23/russia-bans-imports-of-agro-products-from-kazakhstan-after-refusal-to-join-brics

 

As for Belarus... the fact that on 24 Feb 2022 Belarusian territory was used to launch the northern axis of Russian invasion, targeting Kiev and later repelled by the Ukrainians, should tell you most of the things you'd like to know.

[Rick]

15 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

As for the first paragraph, true, thanks to Western support and provided that Ukraine is still supported in the future.

Kazakhstan isn't particularly enamored with Russia, despite Moscow's help in quelling down the unrest in January 2022. They distanced themselves from Russia after Ukraine war, didn't recognize Luganda and Donbabwe (before they were annexed). While they didn't officially join sanctions against Russia their president said they don't want to be used to circumvent them either, they banned certain dual-use exports to Russia and their banks largely complied with Western sanctions in order not to get hit by the secondary ones themselves (same as many banks even in China did). Oh, and they decided they don't want to join BRICS.

All in all they're doing quite a balancing act for a country largely dependent on Russia for its exports (their oil (and possibly gas?) goes mostly through the Russian pipeline system onwards).

They didn't feel particularly safe around their Russian neighbour after 2014, let alone 2022, they fear they might be the target of a 'special operation' themselves.

https://ecfr.eu/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Steppe-change-How-Russias-war-on-Ukraine-is-reshaping-Kazakhstan_1.pdf

https://kyivindependent.com/kazakhstan-bans-export-of-106-products-with-military-use-to-russia/

The Russians are responding in their typical fashion after they don't get their way:

https://www.euronews.com/2024/10/23/russia-bans-imports-of-agro-products-from-kazakhstan-after-refusal-to-join-brics

 

As for Belarus... the fact that on 24 Feb 2022 Belarusian territory was used to launch the northern axis of Russian invasion, targeting Kiev and later repelled by the Ukrainians, should tell you most of the things you'd like to know.

Thanks for the information I didn't know.

[seahawk]

That is always to consider. The former Soviet Republics will either become a part of Russia or become a puppet state of Russia, if Russia annexes the Ukraine. So by all means the Soviet Union will return.

[Ssnake]

2 hours ago, urbanoid said:

They didn't feel particularly safe around their Russian neighbour after 2014, let alone 2022, they fear they might be the target of a 'special operation' themselves.

Drunken Telegram shitposting by Medvedev in August '22 (hastily deleted, back then) certainly hasn't helped to make them feel secure.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/09/16/kazakhstan-russia-ukraine-war/

[Stuart Galbraith]

'Russian Drunk threatens death and destruction to neighbours.'

[R011]

13 hours ago, Rick said:

N.A.T.O. did and is doing what it was designed to do, deter the Soviet Army and its "allies" from going west. Some former Warsaw Pact countries are now N.A.T.O. members and AFAIK, Russia doesn't have any "allies" left from the former Warsaw Pact. I think Russia bit off more than it can chew by invading Ukraine with N.A.T.O. whittling down Russian power with money and equipment. 

Just my opinion, but China is only a "friend" with Russia as long as it only suits China.  North Korea needs money and is willing to have its own people traded for it. Anyone have any information on Russian relations with Belarus and Kazakhstan?

It's only bitten off more than it can chew as long as the West supports Ukraine.  That includes both Europe and the US as neither can do so by themselves without actually going top war with Russia.

[Stuart Galbraith]

22 hours ago, seahawk said:

That is always to consider. The former Soviet Republics will either become a part of Russia or become a puppet state of Russia, if Russia annexes the Ukraine. So by all means the Soviet Union will return.

That has always been my contention. People look at Ukraine as if its in exclusion to any other events. Belarus will become part of a new Union, as will Georgia. The central asian states are a bit different, because the oil money means they can arm themselves to the teeth, and I think iran could stick its sticky finger in. But that would certainly seem to be the intent. Baltic states? I think they are only real interested in getting lots of warm Russian bodies back, but we can certainly see an effort to bite and hold territory to get them.

Hands up tanknet, whom wants to see a Kleptocratic version of the Soviet Union return? Not you E5M, I know you want to nuke them regardless.

Edited November 28, 2024 by Stuart Galbraith

[old_goat]

Europe has bigger problems than whether the NATO is good or not. The main problem is the EU itself. Now, it is nothing more than a festering, rotting abomination. It started as a quite attractive economic alliance, but became corrupt beyond any imagination, and it currently serves only to spread marxism, LGBTQP and anti-white propaganda, not to make Europe better. European union is what needs to be dissolved, and quickly, not NATO in my opinion.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Nigel, is that you?

 

[seahawk]

13 minutes ago, old_goat said:

Europe has bigger problems than whether the NATO is good or not. The main problem is the EU itself. Now, it is nothing more than a festering, rotting abomination. It started as a quite attractive economic alliance, but became corrupt beyond any imagination, and it currently serves only to spread marxism, LGBTQP and anti-white propaganda, not to make Europe better. European union is what needs to be dissolved, and quickly, not NATO in my opinion.

Best would be to end both - no?

[old_goat]

29 minutes ago, seahawk said:

Best would be to end both - no?

Yes, indeed. 

But actually, the best would be a loose economic alliance of independent european nation states, like what the EU was in the beginning. No politics, only ecomomics. I'd also support some military alliance too, but independent from any outside powers. Primary goal is of corse defense of europe, but including defense against migration. As for policy towards Russia, I'd try to be coopearative. We Hungarians did it. And it worked, very well. Why wouldnt it work for others? 

[Stuart Galbraith]

Yes, Hungary and Austria were sucking up to them, whilst they were assassinating dissidents in the UK with WMD, and blowing up Czech ammo dumps. Its amazing what you can tolerate when you hold your nose.

Edited November 28, 2024 by Stuart Galbraith

[old_goat]

26 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

whilst they were assassinating dissidents in the UK with WMD, and blowing up Czech ammo dumps.

It is hardly considered WMD... And as for czech ammo dump, no proof of it was done by russians. 

But anyway, even if these were true, what else do you expect if you bully them?  

[urbanoid]

Oh no, they're not allowing us to recreate our old empire via subversion and aggression, such bullies!

[seahawk]

Well, I am always surprised at the level of understanding posters from the US have for that behaviour.

[Stuart Galbraith]

20 hours ago, old_goat said:

It is hardly considered WMD... And as for czech ammo dump, no proof of it was done by russians. 

But anyway, even if these were true, what else do you expect if you bully them?  

Irradiating several square miles of London, and importing a chemical weapon into the country that could kill 12000 people is what then precisely? if those are not weapons of mass destruction, then what are they? Its certainly not tailored to the requirement, killing 2 people.

There is a public inquiry ongoing about the murder of Dawn Sturgess at the moment that satisfied beyond doubt that means, motive and opportunity belonged to the Russians, and the people that did it were Russia. Perhaps in one of your ivory towers the world looks more complicated, but down here in the mud it looks very far from opaque.

No, im sorry that is utter rubbish. Nobody was bullying Putin in 2006. We had if anything good relations with him because our sycophantic Prime Minister Tony Blair, before and after the murder of Alexander Litvinenko, was desperate to have good relations with Russia. The fact is Putin had a fairly low ranking political opponent murdered, and done in such a byzantine fashion then it could only be him. There was nothing we had did before this which could be perceived as 'bullying'. In fact immediately afterwards we tried to patch it up, and continued to do so till he poisoned half of Salisbury.

You know what, I would love this to happen in your country, just so you could do mental backflips trying to justify it. Who knows, maybe he has.

 

[old_goat]

6 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

 

You know what, I would love this to happen in your country, just so you could do mental backflips trying to justify it. Who knows, maybe he has.

Honestly, I wouldnt care. Litvinenko's case was a Russian internal affair. Nobody was harmed in the UK. End of story. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

And you know that how? How do you know how many people got ill, or subsequently developed cancer, without having any awareness that they were in an environment that may have made them so?

You probably have no desire to note that from the inquiry we know that the resturant they were in had the worlds most radioactive teapot, and likely had been used subsequent to Skripal drinking from it. Yes, you took could have a cup of tea from a radioactive teapot, no extra charge. You also probably have no interest that the airliner seat one of the assassins came from Russia was discovered to be radioctive. Or indeed  his hotel room, or the sink where they poured residue of the polonium they did use away. All of them were subsequenly used by other people prior to decontamination. They they walked around central london, leaving a trail of radioactivity in their wake.

I cud go arn and arn....