Should NATO be folded in favor of a European Union unified command?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“Such an intellectual. Can't wait to read your enlightening thesis on why overt authoritarianism will be the great liberator from the American panopticon.” Can I remind you that the last 20 years, the very democratic USA started more wars than the Russian Dictatorship? I am not a big lover of Putin, but things have to be said.

---

No kidding. It's only been twenty years since the USSR collapsed. Russia has been focused on consolidating within and establishing a new power structure around their new Constitution. Hell, the Communist Party still has control of 20% of the State Duma. Low and behold, once a new top dog cements himself over the past decade, Russia now starts getting antsy with its bordering countries.

Number of wars means nothing. Afghanistan was 100% justified and was mismanaged. Iraq was a large mistake, the American people by and large admit this and it should serve as a testament to the American people that we do not and probably will not ever look back on Bush 42 kindly, despite this man once holding a 90+ approval rating after 9/11.

I don't know what is more embarrassing than this, seeing Europeans in here chastise the US for putting boots on the ground in foreign countries under Bush and then chastise the US when we switch tactics under Obama when they have literally nothing but hands to sit on when Ukraine is under siege.

According to Swedish media, the same sniper attacked both protesters and the police.

It's thus no longer a tin-foil thingy to assume it was done to heat up the situation.

I'd say it points towards the opposition being behind the sniper attacks.

EDIT: We know it's the same sniper because ballistic analysis shows it's the same weapon who fired the shots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Such an intellectual. Can't wait to read your enlightening thesis on why overt authoritarianism will be the great liberator from the American panopticon.

---

I don't know what a panopticon is you intellectual.
Once I am liberated from the US, I will enjoy my 13% flat income tax. As for authoritarianism, Russians like that, they want a strong leader, not unlike the 49% of your nation that follows Fox News, who recently complained about your great leader not being strong enough.
You criticize Putin for being what you wish your president were.

Crimea River.

I wish that the President was harder abroad and softer at home

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

No kidding. It's only been twenty years since the USSR collapsed. Russia has been focused on consolidating within and establishing a new power structure around their new Constitution. Hell, the Communist Party still has control of 20% of the State Duma. Low and behold, once a new top dog cements himself over the past decade, Russia now starts getting antsy with its bordering countries.

Number of wars means nothing. Afghanistan was 100% justified and was mismanaged. Iraq was a large mistake, the American people by and large admit this and it should serve as a testament to the American people that we do not and probably will not ever look back on Bush 42 kindly, despite this man once holding a 90+ approval rating after 9/11.

I don't know what is more embarrassing than this, seeing Europeans in here chastise the US for putting boots on the ground in foreign countries under Bush and then chastise the US when we switch tactics under Obama when they have literally nothing but hands to sit on when Ukraine is under siege.

---

It shouldn't be too outrageous to ask for a decent argument for war before actually fighting a war. Afghanistan was justified, as someone under their wing attacked the US, and they failed to give satisfaction. On Iraq, a number of BS arguments were put forward, clearly refuted, then argument number n put forward in turn, before returning to argument number 1 again and circling back, with the basic argument that we should fight because we should fight. As quoted in my previous post in this thread (last post on the last page), we have an emotional argument put forward with a compelling picture of the Russian-backed government oppressing the poor Ukrainian people, then when I point out that the oppressive actions may have been ordered by someone we're currently backing, the language changes and suddenly said oppressive actions are no longer important. Having been against Iraq from the beginning, I smell BS again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

You criticize Putin for being what you wish your president were.

---

I criticize Putin because I don't trust any man or woman who believes they should be the head of state for more than 12 years (two terms under Russia's const.)

Sure the Russian Constitution says you can be President as many times as you want as long as you have have no more than two consecutive terms, but this only highlights the point of how much of a joke Russian Democracy is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

It shouldn't be too outrageous to ask for a decent argument for war before actually fighting a war. Afghanistan was justified, as someone under their wing attacked the US, and they failed to give satisfaction. On Iraq, a number of BS arguments were put forward, clearly refuted, then argument number n put forward in turn, before returning to argument number 1 again and circling back, with the basic argument that we should fight because we should fight. As quoted in my previous post in this thread (last post on the last page), we have an emotional argument put forward with a compelling picture of the Russian-backed government oppressing the poor Ukrainian people, then when I point out that the oppressive actions may have been ordered by someone we're currently backing, the language changes and suddenly said oppressive actions are no longer important. Having been against Iraq from the beginning, I smell BS again.

---

The Talibans offered to help against terrorist training camps, what more could you have asked for?

Do you seriously think there was ANYTHING the sitting Afghan regime could have offered, once USA smelled revenge and got their war machine going?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

It shouldn't be too outrageous to ask for a decent argument for war before actually fighting a war. Afghanistan was justified, as someone under their wing attacked the US, and they failed to give satisfaction. On Iraq, a number of BS arguments were put forward, clearly refuted, then argument number n put forward in turn, before returning to argument number 1 again and circling back, with the basic argument that we should fight because we should fight. As quoted in my previous post in this thread (last post on the last page), we have an emotional argument put forward with a compelling picture of the Russian-backed government oppressing the poor Ukrainian people, then when I point out that the oppressive actions may have been ordered by someone we're currently backing, the language changes and suddenly said oppressive actions are no longer important. Having been against Iraq from the beginning, I smell BS again.

---

My position is that we should not go to war unless Russia attacks Ukraine. Then we are morally and legally obligated to defend it based on that treaty we signed back in the 1990s with them in exchange for their nukes. Ukraine should take all measures to fight its Crimean War of Independence and we should stay out at all costs, until Russia moves its troops in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

I criticize Putin because I don't trust any man or woman who believes they should be the head of state for more than 12 years (two terms under Russia's const.)

Sure the Russian Constitution says you can be President as many times as you want as long as you have have more than two consecutive terms, but this only highlights the point of how much of a joke Russian Democracy is.

---

Are you aware that America's darling PM in the modern era won 3 general elections? Hang on. Are you aware that America's darling PMs in the modern era both won 3 general elections? That warmongering :daisy: didn't get my vote in the last one though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Are you aware that America's darling PM in the modern era won 3 general elections? Hang on. Are you aware that America's darling PMs in the modern era both won 3 general elections? That warmongering :daisy: didn't get my vote in the last one though.

---

They are "darling" to Republican Neocons. Probably because both Thatcher and Blair are Diet Neocons themselves. It should be a huge tip to you Brits that the political philosophy that demonizes poor people has brought you two individuals that want as many terms as possible.

You guys should probably clamp down on that btw.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

I criticize Putin because I don't trust any man or woman who believes they should be the head of state for more than 12 years (two terms under Russia's const.)

Sure the Russian Constitution says you can be President as many times as you want as long as you have have no more than two consecutive terms, but this only highlights the point of how much of a joke Russian Democracy is.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Are you aware that America's darling PM in the modern era won 3 general elections? Hang on. Are you aware that America's darling PMs in the modern era both won 3 general elections? That warmongering :daisy: didn't get my vote in the last one though.

---

Not only that, Germany must have succumbed to fascism again long ago as Kohl chancellor for 4 terms or 16 years and Merkel is currently in her third term as well. I'm sorry that our democracy is not as great as your horribly corrupt basically-just-one-party-system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Good luck, could rather start a referendum to join the Russian Federation.

---

We already overmatch Russia economically and militarily, just not in "boots on the ground".

Quote:

---

I suppose you mean Fascism, as Brenus said, you might want to look up more than the spelling though.

---

A authoritarian and nationalist philosophy, suborning religious and intellectual thought to the service of the State, persecution of minorities, regimented control of the economy.

A leader who deliberately fosters a quasi-cult of himself?

How is Russia not a Fascist state?

Nice try at the ad hominen, btw. I missed a letter out, big shocker for a Dyslexic writing in a foreign language.

Quote:

---

Oh that's a cute excuse, I bet all the dead civilians are willing to forgive it now.

---

Excuse, what excuse?

I'm not excusing anything, I'm pointing out that those two wars are very specific, one to a period in history and one to a single president. Both in the past.

Quote:

---

GWB is enough, it was certainly enough to kickstart these army reforms for future "world improvement campaigns".
Our new defense ministress wants to turn the army into a family friendly job creator so if we ever oppose Russia, we can only fight while the babysitters have time.

---

As opposed to an army unable to deploy overseas because it is too integrated into civilian life and lacks mobile logistics?

Quote:

---

The USA declared us a nation that requires strong surveillance, wire-tapped our chancellor and treat us all like criminals. And when we complain, they go "well, come and stop us *trolololol*". If I'm supposed to see them as our friends, maybe that was not the most helpful behavior.

---

Even when the British PM demanded MI5 not spy on someone, they did. As previously noted, the US has a plan to kill everyone. If you think Russia doesn't - well.

Quote:

---

Putin is not a tyrant, he is the elected president of the largest country on earth, show some respect.

---

that was not a moral judgement, or disrespectful - but he IS a Tyrant, he has manipulated the Russian polity and Constitution so that he, and only he, can be President, or Prime Minister, or Tsar.

Pretending otherwise at this point is a deliberate exercise in apologetics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

They are "darling" to Republican Neocons. Probably because both Thatcher and Blair are Diet Neocons themselves. It should be a huge tip to you Brits that the political philosophy that demonizes poor people has brought you two individuals that want as many terms as possible.

You guys should probably clamp down on that btw.

---

Or, if you approach it from the British POV, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with wanting as many terms as possible, as anyone going into politics will be of that frame of mind anyway, and we ask only that they do a good job when they're in power. And indeed, Blair, who is poison nowadays, voluntarily stepped down in the middle of his 3rd term. IIRC our first PM, Robert Walpole, served something like 20 years straight, and he probably did the best job of them all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

I criticize Putin because I don't trust any man or woman who believes they should be the head of state for more than 12 years (two terms under Russia's const.)

---

Then you must really hate Britain. Lizzy's been at it for how long now?

Quote:

---

Sure the Russian Constitution says you can be President as many times as you want as long as you have have no more than two consecutive terms, but this only highlights the point of how much of a joke Russian Democracy is.

---

coughRooseveltcough...


Anyway, the best way to deal with Putin is to leave him alone. In a poll conducted a few months ago, more than 50% of Russians said they wouldn't like to see him as the president again.

In all this hiatus, unrelenting against western pressure, he got 10 or 20% more support...

Sweden has no laws against how long a PM can sit. I guess our democracy is WAY off then.

We also have a king, and he's kind of into it for life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Sweden has no laws against how long a PM can sit. I guess our democracy is WAY off then.

We also have a king, and he's kind of into it for life.

---

Ironically, most democracies around the world have the power concentrated into the hands of government and the prime minister himself and they don't have a term limit.

“Then we are morally and legally obligated to defend it based on that treaty we signed back in the 1990s with them in exchange for their nukes” Nope, the Treaty does not say that. The text is above, somewhere, read it.
And the Treaty signed by Ukraine and Russia allowed Russia to have troops.

:lipsrsealed2:Anyway, I even don’t know why I am saying this. USA and EU just sit on Treaties and International Borders when it suits them.
I could stop laughing when Obama said “it is illegal”…

Quote:

---

I think Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania would be somewhat worried if NATO broke up.

Poland is somewhat too much EU-back garden for Russia to dare attack anytime soon though.

---

This.

The situation in Ukraine spells trouble for the Baltic states, whose relationship with Russia have been strained since the break-up of the Soviet Union; if the Russian government is able to invade other countries on the pretext of "defending the Russian minority", then I worry thinking about cities like Daugavpils (Latvia) or Narva Estonia). Although I'm skeptical of Russia's interest in the Baltic states (they're not too strategically important anymore), there has been an increasing tendency in the Russian government to expand its influence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

This.

The situation in Ukraine spells trouble for the Baltic states, whose relationship with Russia have been strained since the break-up of the Soviet Union; if the Russian government is able to invade other countries on the pretext of "defending the Russian minority", then I worry thinking about cities like Daugavpils (Latvia) or Narva Estonia). Although I'm skeptical of Russia's interest in the Baltic states (they're not too strategically important anymore), there has been an increasing tendency in the Russian government to expand its influence.

---

I don't know if I read you right, but I honestly give it a snowballs chance in hell that Putin will mess with NATO countries.

Putin might be many things, but stupid isn't among them.

If the Baltic countries were attacked today the US would do nothing about it. NATO treaty or not, the US citizens couldn't find Estonia on a map and, like when chemical weapons were used on people and never disposed of, the current admin found any excuse it could to wash its hands of the situation. That has worked out extremely well.

What happened to the President who helped topple Gaddafi?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Not only that, Germany must have succumbed to fascism again long ago as Kohl chancellor for 4 terms or 16 years and Merkel is currently in her third term as well. I'm sorry that our democracy is not as great as your horribly corrupt basically-just-one-party-system.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Or, if you approach it from the British POV, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with wanting as many terms as possible, as anyone going into politics will be of that frame of mind anyway, and we ask only that they do a good job when they're in power. And indeed, Blair, who is poison nowadays, voluntarily stepped down in the middle of his 3rd term. IIRC our first PM, Robert Walpole, served something like 20 years straight, and he probably did the best job of them all.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

coughRooseveltcough...

---

Good thing we clamped down and prohibited another one of him after he broke a tradition stemming from Washington.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Sweden has no laws against how long a PM can sit. I guess our democracy is WAY off then.

We also have a king, and he's kind of into it for life.

---

I mean, there is nothing much to say other than you guys are all doing it wrong. I am glad that no matter what, I will always be able to point at two different faces as the reason X decade was terrible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

If the Baltic countries were attacked today the US would do nothing about it. NATO treaty or not, the US citizens couldn't find Estonia on a map and, like when chemical weapons were used on people and never disposed of, the current admin found any excuse it could to wash its hands of the situation. That has worked out extremely well.

What happened to the President who helped topple Gaddafi?

---

I will jump in and defend USA here.

I do believe the US population would react quite strongly if a NATO member was attacked.

Heck, anyone above the age of 30 got it served with their mothers milk to uphold NATO at all costs. Younger peeps might have another view, as they are, you know, stupid. But I can assure you that the US of A would muscle up and send everything they had if there even was a whisper about aggression towards a NATO country.

USA's whole legibility as Super Power is based on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

I don't know if I read you right, but I honestly give it a snowballs chance in hell that Putin will mess with NATO countries.

Putin might be many things, but stupid isn't among them.

---

In FotS a general that gets more command stars than the Daimyo receives a "Delusions of Grandeur" vice. I'm starting to think that Putin has it. He is becoming too much of a loose cannon imho.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

I don't know if I read you right, but I honestly give it a snowballs chance in hell that Putin will mess with NATO countries.

Putin might be many things, but stupid isn't among them.

---

I'm torn on this.

I agree that Putin is no fool, but sometimes I get the impression that he's somewhat in a tight spot. I understand that he has lost a lot of face in Russia, and I think he would go to great lengths to stay in power. No, I don't see him starting a full-blown invasion of Estonia, Latvia, or Lithuania, but he (or someone else) could use the pretext of riots in the Baltic states to justify a military presence in certain locations ("to protect the Russian minority"), then by demanding a certain quota of Russian representatives in parliament, a certain quota of Russian bureaucrats, the elevation of Russian as an official language, etc, etc. It's not an invasion that I fear, but a slippery slope.

Quote:

---

If the Baltic countries were attacked today the US would do nothing about it. NATO treaty or not, the US citizens couldn't find Estonia on a map and, like when chemical weapons were used on people and never disposed of, the current admin found any excuse it could to wash its hands of the situation. That has worked out extremely well.

---

Maybe the U.S. wouldn't interfere directly, but I hardly think that an invasion of the Baltic states would go unnoticed by countries such as Poland or Finland, who would most likely pressure the individual European Union states into a conflict with Russia. Of course, maybe not Finland, we all know what happened the last time when Russia tried to invade them.


EDIT: To illustrate the current issues of Baltic-Russian relations, a few years ago there were huge riots in certain parts of Tallinn after the Estonian government decided to remove a statue commemorating Soviet soldiers; this also led to some strong comments from Russian officials, in which the Estonian president, prime minister, and minister of foreign affairs were called nazis. The fact that there are several marches throughout the Baltic states that honour Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian soldiers who served in Nazi regiments has also set some bad blood. Very recently, the Latvian minister of environment was sacked over this. Throughout the Baltic states, Nazi Germany was initially hailed as a liberator from the Soviet Union (additionally, the Nazis were a bit vague over possible independence after the war, whereas the Baltic states were completely annexed by the Soviets). After a few years of course, most of the people figured out there weren't any differences between the two, and the Nazis lost a lot of sympathy. However, unlike in Western Europe, the Soviet Union has left traces that are so strong and so recent, that it would be nothing short of miraculous if people would just gloss over it (my girlfriends family, for example, was deported to Siberia).

tl;dr: there is a lot of bad blood between Russia and the Baltic states, which is sorta understandable on both sides.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

In FotS a general that gets more stars than the Daimyo receives a "Delusions of Grandeur" vice. I'm starting to think that Putin has it. He is becoming too much of a loose cannon imho.

---

Only, he IS the Shogun of his Empire. As well as, you know, the Emperor, or Tsar as he would be known over there.

I, for one, think they should just crown Putin Tsar, give him a ****load of estates, and then turn their eyes towards democracy. But that's just silly ol' me :clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

I'm torn on this.

I agree that Putin is no fool, but sometimes I get the impression that he's somewhat in a tight spot. I understand that he has lost a lot of face in Russia, and I think he would go to great lengths to stay in power. No, I don't see him starting a full-blown invasion of Estonia, Latvia, or Lithuania, but he (or someone else) could use the pretext of riots in the Baltic states to justify a military presence in certain locations ("to protect the Russian minority"), then by demanding a certain quota of Russian representatives in parliament, a certain quota of Russian bureaucrats, the elevation of Russian as an official language, etc, etc. It's not an invasion that I fear, but a slippery slope.



Maybe the U.S. wouldn't interfere directly, but I hardly think that an invasion of the Baltic states would go unnoticed by countries such as Poland or Finland, who would most likely pressure the individual European Union states into a conflict with Russia. Of course, maybe not Finland, we all know what happened the last time when Russia tried to invade them.

---

Some intelligent poster above (forgot who) brightly stated that the Russians want to see themselves as the good guys, just like we do in the West.

If for no other reasons: Russia can't win the media war if invading, or even trying to stir up, the Baltic States. This is not the Ukrain/Georgian backwaters we are talking about, that most people assume belong to Russia anyway. This is developed NATO members with LOADS of political and cultural ties to NATO-member states, and the West at large.

Heck, every second farmer in Sweden have a Latvian wife by now.

Maybe.

But 100% of Russian Estonians in Tallinn, and 1/3rd of the Latvian population agree with Russia's course of action in Ukraine. And then there's the mayor of Tallinn, Edgar Savisaar, who makes no real secret of his proximity to the Russian government. Hell, only six MPs of twenty-one of his party (Keskerakond) signed a letter expressing sympathies to Ukraine, and that itself caused a small riot in Keskerakond (his party).

Also I can't believe it, the Baltic states are relevant for once.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

Maybe.

But 100% of Russian Estonians in Tallinn, and 1/3rd of the Latvian population agree with Russia's course of action in Ukraine. And then there's the mayor of Tallinn, Edgar Savisaar, who makes no real secret of his proximity to the Russian government. Hell, only six MPs of twenty-one of his party (Keskerakond) signed a letter expressing sympathies to Ukraine, and that itself caused a small riot in Keskerakond (his party).

Also I can't believe it, the Baltic states are relevant for once.

---

I wonder if the local Russians there are also eager to be absorbed into the empire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

Also I can't believe it, the Baltic states are relevant for once.

---

Yeah, that's why Sweden decided to place as many as 2 (TWO!!) fighter jets on Gotland.

You know, if the first one doesn't keep the Russian Bear at bay, we have a plan(e) to fall back on.

He's watching...

Attachment 12467