11–20 of 395 posts
Why does NATO still exist? It's existence was supposed to be to counter the Soviet threat. Now the threat is gone and NATO is still around. It shows that the Soviet excuse was just a pretext.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If things go wrong, I think the establishment would reassert itself. But there would be a few weeks of chaos. That interval represents a new strategic opening. It's not enough for a land war in Europe. But a lighting grab for territory? Like Mongolia? Or Taiwan? Or the Baltics or Balkans or a contiguous stretch of the Middle East? If you can secure enough resources to hold strong against non-military retaliations, e.…
You really think a NATO ally can be hit? With a land war? You think the Republican Party would need to reassert, the same party that dragged us into two wars in the last 12 years? I have to respectfully disagree.
No, but the odds don't look as daunting as they used to. It's certainly more bargainable than it ever was. In any case, only the Baltics in my last comment are NATO allies. Lots of American interests aren't covered by Article 5.
> I have to respectfully disagree
My point isn't that confrontation is likely. It's that disrespectful disagreement of the status quo is more likely today than before, in part because of what happened in Crimea and Syria, and in part because we have such an unstable domestic situation with clearly-signaled foreign indeterminism.
Your worst-case for an overreaching autocrat today looks less like Saddam Hussein and more like Assad. That encourages dice rolling.
This is somewhat overblown, there was a lot of talk about this as it became clear Trump was about to be elected. Yes Trump is stirring the pot a bit maybe to play Russia against China. Maybe it's to get Europe to spend a little more on NATO so the US doesn't fund the vast majority of that alliance and he can cut some spending there. Whatever the mind set is, not much has changed. The US and all of its allies are stil…
To your point regarding Russian and Chinese relations, I don't see how in the current frame this is possible. Russia will become more heavily reliant to China in the future, as western Europe modernizes its energy sources. Energy is a major driver in the Russian economy [1].
To your last paragraph, the same logic could have been used after the Russian excursions into Afghanistan, which I believe indicates it is a historically weak argument by itself.
[1] http://www.ibtimes.com/vladimir-putin-meet-russian-oil-chief...
Why does NATO still exist? It's existence was supposed to be to counter the Soviet threat. Now the threat is gone and NATO is still around. It shows that the Soviet excuse was just a pretext.
A pretext for what exactly? I have no issue with the existence of a military cooperation agreement to defend each other in the event of war breaking out, and fail to see how it would be a bad idea.
Why does NATO still exist? It's existence was supposed to be to counter the Soviet threat. Now the threat is gone and NATO is still around. It shows that the Soviet excuse was just a pretext.
The US basically has access to the command control infrastructure of the NATO allies. Our officers know their officers. We know their capability.
This is somewhat overblown, there was a lot of talk about this as it became clear Trump was about to be elected. Yes Trump is stirring the pot a bit maybe to play Russia against China. Maybe it's to get Europe to spend a little more on NATO so the US doesn't fund the vast majority of that alliance and he can cut some spending there. Whatever the mind set is, not much has changed. The US and all of its allies are stil…
This may be true but the actions of the Trump administration have many allies questioning how reliable the US is. That's not "stirring the pot" - it's potentially a significant shift in the world order and a decrease in how effective our foreign relations are.
The public allegations and concern expressed by our allies and own intelligence agencies should give everyone some concern regardless of one's political leanings.
Why does NATO still exist? It's existence was supposed to be to counter the Soviet threat. Now the threat is gone and NATO is still around. It shows that the Soviet excuse was just a pretext.
Let's just imagine that a newly-emboldened Putin decides to annex part of another European country, like he got away with over Ukraine. Let's say some Baltic state, like Estonia. Wouldn't you feel safer knowing that country was under the NATO umbrella?
President trump would be advised by the generals he knows more than that he has to go in front of the American people and let them know why he has to take the actions he is taking. Sending US troops into Europe.
Believe me, there is zero doubt, if NATO is hit its game over. Why does Putin cry about NATO so much?
This is somewhat overblown, there was a lot of talk about this as it became clear Trump was about to be elected. Yes Trump is stirring the pot a bit maybe to play Russia against China. Maybe it's to get Europe to spend a little more on NATO so the US doesn't fund the vast majority of that alliance and he can cut some spending there. Whatever the mind set is, not much has changed. The US and all of its allies are stil…
(1) no strategy is involved at all, populists being known to do that, either because of incompetence or because stirring the pot gives the illusion of progress (it's after all why he was voted), or
(2) his strategy is aligned with his businesses, which is not that far fetched, given how he hasn't banned immigrants from Muslim countries in which he has business interests.
Why does NATO still exist? It's existence was supposed to be to counter the Soviet threat. Now the threat is gone and NATO is still around. It shows that the Soviet excuse was just a pretext.