Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Why? Seriously. What exactly is NATO's purpose now that the USSR and the Warsaw Pact no longer exist?
You didn't explain why being a member of NATO is beneficial to the US. How are we any more able to support European countries against Russian aggression by being a member? How does not being a member stop us from doing so?If you can't see the obvious, nothing anybody can say will explain it. Russia has been aggressively expansionist since Peter The Great. Ideological changes never slowed them down in the least, and we have Putin's own words to go by as well. You can keep playing dumb, though; it's fashionable.
You didn't explain why being a member of NATO is beneficial to the US. How are we any more able to support European countries against Russian aggression by being a member? How does not being a member stop us from doing so?
Why? Seriously. What exactly is NATO's purpose now that the USSR and the Warsaw Pact no longer exist?
Sure but how does our membership in NATO enable us to stop it? And how does the US not being a member prevent us from stopping it?Obviously Russian aggression and expansionism does still exist.
So if Putin comes out tomorrow and says all Eastern European countries should be members of NATO you would be against it? You are a simpletonIf vermin like Putin doesn't like it, it must be a good thing. You clearly have no clue what NATO is or does.
There is a big reason to expand NATO. Russia has betrayed and invaded its neighbors to the point that even traditionally neutral countries like Finland and Sweden have decided to join NATO for protection from the Russian Bear. Russia has proven multiple times that it can't be trusted to stay within its borders.Its an agreement between NATO and Russia. The US doesnt get to run NATO even though we pay for it all.
Sec Baker worked the agreement and conformed by then NATO Secretary General in a May 17 speech.
Theres really no reason to have expanded NATO then and there definitely hasn’t been one for decades. We have fostered this adversarial relationship with Russia but for the life of me I can’t understand how it benefits us.
The US can deter Russia ourselves, sure. But we still have allies, and we still have enemies. If you want the US to abandon Europe by leaving NATO, don't expect much help from the EU vice China. And don't expect peace to hold for very long in Europe either.Sure but how does our membership in NATO enable us to stop it? And how does the US not being a member prevent us from stopping it?
More simply why does our ability to deal with Russia effectively hinge on NATO?
I dont think NATO does what we think it does. I dont think it deters Russia at all. In fact I think it does the exact opposite. NATO is seen as a threat by Russia. And there's little wonder. It's sole purpose is to protect Europe from the evil Russians. If Russia and most of the South American nations formed an alliance for SA's security and to stop US aggression, would we see that as a threat or not? Would we feel more or less threatened if that alliance started expanding into Central America, and eventually was courting Mexico to join? We would be apoplectic about it and we might even invade Mexico in an effort to stop the expansion of that alliance. There is little reason for the US or Europe to have an adversarial relationship with Russia. And yet we have fostered it for decades upon decades. NATO is part of that.The US can deter Russia ourselves, sure. But we still have allies, and we still have enemies. If you want the US to abandon Europe by leaving NATO, don't expect much help from the EU vice China. And don't expect peace to hold for very long in Europe either.
NATO membership allows European countries to sign on to the NPT as non-nuclear weapon States. The NATO umbrella means they don't need their own nukes to deter Russian aggression.
Without that protection? Observe. Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova....
It is NATO Article 5 that keeps Russia in check in the Balts and Eastern Europe. Dealing with Russian aggression is the NATO mission. Putin reinvigorated that mission with his full-scale invasion in February.
So to answer your question, NATO is the obstacle in Putin's way, and without the US, NATO is toothless.
I dont think NATO does what we think it does. I dont think it deters Russia at all. In fact I think it does the exact opposite. NATO is seen as a threat by Russia. And there's little wonder. It's sole purpose is to protect Europe from the evil Russians. If Russia and most of the South American nations formed an alliance for SA's security and to stop US aggression, would we see that as a threat or not? Would we feel more or less threatened if that alliance started expanding into Central America, and eventually was courting Mexico to join? We would be apoplectic about it and we might even invade Mexico in an effort to stop the expansion of that alliance. There is little reason for the US or Europe to have an adversarial relationship with Russia. And yet we have fostered it for decades upon decades. NATO is part of that.
Im not saying that Russia isnt at fault for invading Ukraine. They are. But we (the west) bear some responsibility for pushing them to it IMO.
Back to the original point though. Does not being a member of NATO stop the US from coming to the aid of a European country who is invaded by Russia? Does NATO membership give the US more or less flexibility to deal with threats regardless of where they arise? I don't think we should be in any treaties like NATO. Any agreement whereby the US is required to enter into armed conflict is a bad agreement IMO.
We are saying in essence. We need NATO to deter Russian aggression, and their aggression is proof that we need NATO. That's like a doctor telling you to take this medication to cure some disease so you do, and you come back and you say doctor I still have the disease and him saying see that's why you need to keep taking that pill....
NATO is seen as a threat by Russia. And there's little wonder. It's sole purpose is to protect Europe from the evil Russians.
You say that like it's not an important purpose.
There is little reason for the US or Europe to have an adversarial relationship with Russia.
Little reason? Like enslaving Eastern Europe for 45 years?
Or did you have a different "little reason" in mind?
We hadn’t run a Reforger training op since the collapse of the Soviet Union. The last one was in 1993 and units in Germany pretended they were arriving from the States because none were actually going.
Trump was pulling troops out.
Trumpâs Sudden and Dangerous Troop Withdrawal From Germany
President Donald J. Trump’s order to withdraw nearly ten thousand U.S. troops from Germany betrays a close ally, undermines confidence in Washington, and makes Europe and the United States less safe.www.cfr.org
Those who questioned the move were denounced as stuck in a Cold War mentality. Time to move on. Russia was no threat.
Russia invaded Georgia. W. was President and those of us in Georgia joked we expected the military to show up anytime.
They’ve been invading the old Soviet Block countries for a while now.
Russian-occupied territories - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
Russia moves the border when people aren’t paying attention.
The real threat is Russia. They are the ones expanding. And they are the ones we need to oppose.
And as soon as the ink is dry Russia should bomb them into rubble exactly as the illegal invasion of Irak did. What's good for the goose is good for the gander....... NATO should be running around offering membership to some 25 states on Russia's borders .......
World domination is what.Why? Seriously. What exactly is NATO's purpose now that the USSR and the Warsaw Pact no longer exist?
Or should Iran be punishing the US for destroying Iran's Democratic government during Operation TP Ajax? Should Vietnam be punishing the US for the illegal invasion and occupation of Vietnam? Should Cuba be punishing the US for the illegal Bay of Pigs invasion? Should Irak be punishing the US for destroying Irak's infrastructure during the illegal invasion of Irak on a lie of non-existent WMD's? Should Grenada be punishing the US for the illegal invasion of Grenada? Should Mexico be punishing the US for stealing Texas? Should Cambodia be punishing the US for the illegal invasion of Cambodia? Should Laos be punishing the US for the illegal invasion of Laos?...... Should we still be punishing the Italians for the Romans enslavement of Europe?
Simply put ..... yes.You have the foreign policy acumen of a 4 y/o.
Who said NATO supports European countries in the first place and what aggression by Russia are they talking about?You didn't explain why being a member of NATO is beneficial to the US. How are we any more able to support European countries against Russian aggression by being a member? How does not being a member stop us from doing so?
What does threatening Russia gain us? Other than Russian aggression, I mean.
That was 40+ years ago. Should we still be punishing the Italians for the Romans enslavement of Europe? Should there be an alliance against Mongolia threatening them because of what Ghengis Khan did?
You have the foreign policy acumen of a 4 y/o.
Or should Iran be punishing the US for destroying Iran's Democratic government during Operation TP Ajax? Should Vietnam be punishing the US for the illegal invasion and occupation of Vietnam? Should Cuba be punishing the US for the illegal Bay of Pigs invasion? Should Irak be punishing the US for destroying Irak's infrastructure during the illegal invasion of Irak on a lie of non-existent WMD's? Should Grenada be punishing the US for the illegal invasion of Grenada? Should Mexico be punishing the US for stealing Texas? Should Cambodia be punishing the US for the illegal invasion of Cambodia? Should Laos be punishing the US for the illegal invasion of Laos?
Simply put ..... yes.
I dont think NATO does what we think it does. I dont think it deters Russia at all. In fact I think it does the exact opposite. NATO is seen as a threat by Russia. And there's little wonder. It's sole purpose is to protect Europe from the evil Russians. If Russia and most of the South American nations formed an alliance for SA's security and to stop US aggression, would we see that as a threat or not? Would we feel more or less threatened if that alliance started expanding into Central America, and eventually was courting Mexico to join? We would be apoplectic about it and we might even invade Mexico in an effort to stop the expansion of that alliance. There is little reason for the US or Europe to have an adversarial relationship with Russia. And yet we have fostered it for decades upon decades. NATO is part of that.
Im not saying that Russia isnt at fault for invading Ukraine. They are. But we (the west) bear some responsibility for pushing them to it IMO.
Back to the original point though. Does not being a member of NATO stop the US from coming to the aid of a European country who is invaded by Russia? Does NATO membership give the US more or less flexibility to deal with threats regardless of where they arise? I don't think we should be in any treaties like NATO. Any agreement whereby the US is required to enter into armed conflict is a bad agreement IMO.
We are saying in essence. We need NATO to deter Russian aggression, and their aggression is proof that we need NATO. That's like a doctor telling you to take this medication to cure some disease so you do, and you come back and you say doctor I still have the disease and him saying see that's why you need to keep taking that pill....
The leopard hasn’t changed its spots. Russia is still invading and attempting to conquer its neighbors. The only thing that has changed is that Russia has far less offensive capacity than the USSR did. That’s what is forcing the members of the old USSR and Warsaw Pact into NATO for self defense.What does threatening Russia gain us? Other than Russian aggression, I mean.
That was 40+ years ago. Should we still be punishing the Italians for the Romans enslavement of Europe? Should there be an alliance against Mongolia threatening them because of what Ghengis Khan did?
You have the foreign policy acumen of a 4 y/o.
