Should Georgia Be Admitted to NATO?

In my opinion it's a rotten idea. Some others have commented on it, such as NRO:

It is a relief that Georgia was not permitted into NATO ahead of Russia's clearly orchestrated invasion. Yes, you heard correctly, a relief.

Why? Here's why: Is there anyone who thinks for a second that any of the NATO members would have risen to the occasion to defend a newly admitted Georgia against "mighty Russia"?

It is much more than possible that Russian armor would have been confronted with flurries of impenetrable "strongly worded statements." Kind of like now. Only, had NATO failed to rise to defend a member state — which is wholly plausible — NATO would have been exposed as nothing more than the paper it is constructed around.

There may be some credibility to the claim that NATO membership would have served as a deterrent for Russia, thus preventing the invasion. Perhaps. Credibility, but not assurance. And what if Putin, who cares little about world opinion (perhaps his greatest asset), had called the NATO bluff? Then what?

Malcolm Rifkind:

Yet weak is exactly how the West will be perceived if it extends NATO membership to nations it has no intention of defending. Had Georgia already been a member of the defensive alliance, it is less likely that Russia would have behaved in the way it did.

However, it is not unlikely. The Caucasus are vital to the security of Russia's most southerly regions. Had deterrence failed, there is very little chance that the Russian invasion could have been repelled. As a result, the guarantee of Article Five which Western European countries have relied on since the dawn of the Cold War would have been shattered, together with NATO's credibility.

The issue at hand, at least for political leaders in Western Europe, is not just whether it is in the interests of Georgia and Ukraine to join NATO. It is whether it is in the interests of existing members to admit them.

Another Orgah has expressed a rather messianic view that not only should Georgia be admitted to NATO, but so should Russia once they behave "acceptably." What, I am forced to wonder, is the point of a defense treaty if it becomes universal? Does it then mean anything?

No. Georgia is incapable of being a serious military asset to the rest of NATO in the case of war and admitting them would just be a provocative move against Russia. It would be like Russia signing an alliance with Canada or Mexico to align against us, like you stated in the other thread.

Only nations that have something major to contribute militarily should be allowed to join NATO. If you believe Georgia can contribute, they should join. If not, they should not join.

If Russia invaded a NATO Georgia would be the same as Nazi Germany invaded Poland. Nothing could really be done in time to save the country, but the fighting would erupt elsewhere and that elsewhere might not run as well for the Russians as their Georgian campaign did. To be honest, comparing fighting Georgia's minuscule army in a six days war with fighting the entire NATO alliance is wierd. That taking off from the premise that NATO would fulfill it's duty to defend every single member in the alliance (As it honestly should and without any hesitation)

The problem is the distance that goes on between being a member of NATO and not being.

As for being a valuable asset, the only one I can immediatly remember is about opening a Southern front against the Russians, fighting the Russians together with most of the Turkish Army.

Georgia and Ukraine could help solidify a NATO naval presence in the black sea that would be otherwise closed off to real deterrent. Plus I don't believe that Russia would have done what it had if they were part of NATO. The jig will be up once they are in the alliance. Also, Georgian leadership will be much less russophobic after they feel more secure.

Isnt it the North Atlantic Treaty organization for a reason??? last time i checked the Pontus Euxine isnt the North atlantic by a long shot...Only country who gets an exception to that in my book is turkey.

(another half joke...The debate tonight started this....)

Admitting Georgia into NATO won't really benefit the organization, however, should Russian aggression persist in the Caucasus, Georgia may be either A. The first campaign in a NATO-Russian War or B. The country that exposes NATO as, as stated before, the paper it is constructed around.

The United States agreed not to expand NATO into Russia's Sphere of Influence and they should stand by that. Doing anything else will just lead to large-scale conflict with Russia as it becomes increasingly desperate to try to leave a mark on this world.

Keeping NATO as it is will most likely be better for Russia and NATO alike in that it will cause less irritation to both parties and allow for ample security on both sides.

Fortunately they will still most likely be brought into the fold irrespective of the judgments on this forum. If Russia is going to start a nuclear war because its border nations realize westernized security - then they are a legitimate threat to guard against. They are a dying breed - a hyper-nationalist, isolated, paranoid, rogue power. We need to tame the wild beast and get them acquainted with a solid west. We've started a confederacy of western States - they think they don't want in, but they do.

georgia? Possibly - the pipeline is an asset worth protecting.
Ukraine? Definitely.

~:smoking:

One question.

What about Russia in the EU? :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Fortunately they will still most likely be brought into the fold irrespective of the judgments on this forum. If Russia is going to start a nuclear war because its border nations realize westernized security - then they are a legitimate threat to guard against. They are a dying breed - a hyper-nationalist, isolated, paranoid, rogue power. We need to tame the wild beast and get them acquainted with a solid west. We've started a confederacy of western States - they think they don't want in, but they do.

---

Democratic states on the border are not an issue. Western-backed half-hearted democracies led by President Idiot, dotted with NATO military bases and missile sites pointing at Moscow are an issue.

Really, you seem to love the idea of going to a war with Russia. As Lemur told you in the other thread, go join the Georgian army. Be the first to fight before the menace. That is assuming that you don't start having a bad taste after a month or so. :beam:

You'd figure at some-point in time someone would've warned us against entangling alliances.....oh well

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

You'd figure at some-point in time someone would've warned us against entangling alliances.....oh well

---

But that was about, what, 300 years ago? You don't think anything's changed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwedishFish

But that was about, what, 300 years ago? You don't think anything's changed?

---

I am a huge proponent of the KISS method of goverment

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

Democratic states on the border are not an issue. Western-backed half-hearted democracies led by President Idiot, dotted with NATO military bases and missile sites pointing at Moscow are an issue.

Really, you seem to love the idea of going to a war with Russia. As Lemur told you in the other thread, go join the Georgian army. Be the first to fight before the menace. That is assuming that you don't start having a bad taste after a month or so. :beam:

---

I couldn't really sum up my analysis of it any better. I think the front that this is legitimate concern for Georgia or legitimate concern over supposed international interests we have in Georgia is pretense for bellicosity towards Russia. NATO is a military alliance, and should not be an ideological pulpit, if Georgia can be a meaningful part of NATO fine. If not, admitting them just to sap at Russia's borders is provocative and not worth the risk of war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

I couldn't really sum up my analysis of it any better. I think the front that this is legitimate concern for Georgia or legitimate concern over supposed international interests we have in Georgia is pretense for bellicosity towards Russia. NATO is a military alliance, and should not be an ideological pulpit, if Georgia can be a meaningful part of NATO fine. If not, admitting them just to sap at Russia's borders is provocative and not worth the risk of war.

---

NATO is security. It helps nations (except for ours) to focus on their domestic reforms rather than elect strongmen to protect them from invasion. Russia will be part of it one day if they cut the crap and recognize that we don't want a fight. It isn't a threat to Russia as it is not like the U.S. empire is knocking at their door - as many European anti-Americans can attest to. If we were annexing land their reservations would make sense - but we are not, so they don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

[NATO] isn't a threat to Russia as it is not like the U.S. empire is knocking at their door - as many European anti-Americans can attest to.

---

Um, yeah, see, here's the problem — that's not how Russia sees it. And I doubt they will ever take such a benign view of NATO. Remember that the alliance was formed with the express purpose of containing the Soviet Union and responding to them militarily. That's a fact that is not lost on Russia.

I seriously doubt they want to join NATO, and any attempt to get them in would end in bitter failure. That's just la-la fantasyland, man.

If they want to preserve their freedom from Russia, don't enter, Georgia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Um, yeah, see, here's the problem — that's not how Russia sees it. And I doubt they will ever take such a benign view of NATO. Remember that the alliance was formed with the express purpose of containing the Soviet Union and responding to them militarily. That's a fact that is not lost on Russia.

I seriously doubt they want to join NATO, and any attempt to get them in would end in bitter failure. That's just la-la fantasyland, man.

---

Is it?

2000 - Putin mentions his desire to join NATO
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...to-722225.html

Gorbachev suggested it after the fall of the Soviet Union

Yeltsin suggested it as well
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...51C1A967958260

I guess I'm dancing around la-la fantasy land. With the expansion of the EU and eventual centralization of that state, the U.S. will no doubt look for a counterweight in the alliance that Canada simply can't provide. We could use that as an excuse to help create a central Asian union similar to the one the Russian Federation has been working on. I'm all about expanding security and helping nations rely less on military deterrence. NATO has provided an excuse for European nations to spend drastically less on defense. Russia is looking for security from China above all else and needs to realize that the west will be an ally; they are part of the west for craps sake.

The whole deal is this - If someone was to say 70 years ago that European nations would be part of one superstate without violent annexation people would call you crazy - possibly in la-la land. It is possible and desirable to create a superstate in central Asia within NATO - with the practical purpose of containing China and India and promoting democratic, socio-capitalist expansion. It also wouldn't be bad to have a massive, functional state that holds massive energy reserves and a small population within the confines of NATO.

It is necessary for security, it is desirable for both parties, and it is doable in the long term. Why is that fantasy land?

I think these fancy arguments all still basically dance around the fact that Georgia is not a significant factor in the balance of power between the west and Russia. Playing around with this is just a pretext to provoke confrontation, IMHO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

I think these fancy arguments all still basically dance around the fact that Georgia is not a significant factor in the balance of power between the west and Russia. Playing around with this is just a pretext to provoke confrontation, IMHO.

---

Maybe my "fancy arguments" can be my dancing partner when we are dancing around la-la fantasy land?

Yes - we are trying to provoke confrontation. Why shouldn't we want to de-stabilize the one thing that is keeping China out of the largest, most resource dense, least populated per square mile country in the world?

Why do we want a weak or hostile Russia? We simply want a democratic Russia that is a responsible player in global progression.

If Russia were to enter NATO, we wouldn't need NATO.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwedishFish

If Russia were to enter NATO, we wouldn't need NATO.....

---

Quote:

---

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO); is a military alliance established by the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty on 4 April 1949. The NATO headquarters are in Brussels, Belgium, [3] and the organization constitutes a system of collective defense whereby its member states agree to mutual defense in response to an attack by any external party.

---

Why would any rational person want to get rid of that?

We'd still need it against any threats coming from south, east or west of the North Atlantic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwedishFish

If Russia were to enter NATO, we wouldn't need NATO.....

---

Well, you know, except for defending against China, India, and any other potential superpower.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

Well, you know, except for defending against China, India, and any other potential superpower.

---

It's only about defense in the last instance. It is really about helping people to relax, avoid autocracy and spend money on the things that make the world a better place. It's funny how a military alliance can do that and all anyone hears is "military".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

One question.

What about Russia in the EU? :P

---

Never happen Russia is too big geographically the E.U. could never pay for all the stuff to build, fix up, reform etc etc. For Russia to enter into membership talks current members would have to approve thats obviously not going to happen for reasons we all already are aware of. Then there is also the problem that Russia governments really see things a bit differant to the rest of us I see nascent democracy they see encirclement of enemies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Is it?

2000 - Putin mentions his desire to join NATO
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...to-722225.html

Gorbachev suggested it after the fall of the Soviet Union

Yeltsin suggested it as well
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...51C1A967958260

I guess I'm dancing around la-la fantasy land. With the expansion of the EU and eventual centralization of that state, the U.S. will no doubt look for a counterweight in the alliance that Canada simply can't provide. We could use that as an excuse to help create a central Asian union similar to the one the Russian Federation has been working on. I'm all about expanding security and helping nations rely less on military deterrence. NATO has provided an excuse for European nations to spend drastically less on defense. Russia is looking for security from China above all else and needs to realize that the west will be an ally; they are part of the west for craps sake.

The whole deal is this - If someone was to say 70 years ago that European nations would be part of one superstate without violent annexation people would call you crazy - possibly in la-la land. It is possible and desirable to create a superstate in central Asia within NATO - with the practical purpose of containing China and India and promoting democratic, socio-capitalist expansion. It also wouldn't be bad to have a massive, functional state that holds massive energy reserves and a small population within the confines of NATO.

It is necessary for security, it is desirable for both parties, and it is doable in the long term. Why is that fantasy land?

---

It is a desirable and even possibly a noble objective to increase the EU/NATO even up to and including Russia. Desirable but its not doable first they have to want it since they think they have the upper hand with oil and gas reserves short term they wont.

Long term as China and Indian expand they will court Russia for its energy at first Russia will be top dog but the whip will be passed to the new guy eventually. This means Russia will become a toy of bigger powers.

Even now its unlikey Russia could beat a mid ranking nato member since you cant just magic up strength I predict a very humble Russia in less than twenty yrs. Russia and even EU members Talked a lot lately about a concept called a multipolar world well guess what not all poles will be equal.

If that becomes true no superpower would want a potential flashpoint country with resentful minority populations in its alliance as these can lead downs roads you never intended hence Kosovo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Why would any rational person want to get rid of that?

We'd still need it against any threats coming from south, east or west of the North Atlantic.

---

Who really could be a threat against Europe, Russia and America? China? Please. India? What?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwedishFish

Who really could be a threat against Europe, Russia and America? China? Please. India? What?

---

Really if you base your alliances on threats you lock yourself into defensive thinking NATO has tried and is trying to turn itself into a power projection tool this is a correct thing for a millatary alliance armies are for fighting and winning with there is no substitute for victory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

It is a desirable and even possibly a noble objective to increase the EU/NATO even up to and including Russia. Desirable but its not doable first they have to want it since they think they have the upper hand with oil and gas reserves short term they wont.

Long term as China and Indian expand they will court Russia for its energy at first Russia will be top dog but the whip will be passed to the new guy eventually. This means Russia will become a toy of bigger powers.

Even now its unlikey Russia could beat a mid ranking nato member since you cant just magic up strength I predict a very humble Russia in less than twenty yrs. Russia and even EU members Talked a lot lately about a concept called a multipolar world well guess what not all poles will be equal.

If that becomes true no superpower would want a potential flashpoint country with resentful minority populations in its alliance as these can lead downs roads you never intended hence Kosovo.

---

I'm not interested in Russia joining the EU, but NATO is another story. Russia should expand south and eastward in an economic bloc. The fear of Russia doesn't seem to be as high in central asian nations. I don't care about a 1 government fantasy - II don't even think that is ideal - but security and democratic expansion is definitely on the agenda.

I believe that quite a bit of Russian aggression is caused by their fear and previous humiliations. They feel alone in a sea of hostility - Europe doesn't accept them. NATO could change that.

I believe that Russia in NATO would help me relax as an American - I would no longer fear China and It may help real progress move forward.

Quote:

---

Russia should expand south and eastward in an economic bloc.

---

So now you want Russia to expand it's economic influence and sphere into Central Asia?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwedishFish

So now you want Russia to expand it's economic influence and sphere into Central Asia?

---

Without a doubt. I want them to shore up support in central Asia at the expense of China and India from NATO's point of view. This is what they seem to be doing naturally without much resistance anyway. I'm interested in creating a balancing act of power with NATO left, right, and center.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Without a doubt. I want them to shore up support in central Asia at the expense of China and India from a NATO point of view.

---

They are not mature enough to do this correctly so it could only be done at swordpoint or through absorbing weak countries since that didn't work last time why is it differant now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Without a doubt. I want them to shore up support in central Asia at the expense of China and India from NATO's point of view. This is what they seem to be doing naturally without much resistance anyway. I'm interested in creating a balancing act of power with NATO left, right, and center.

---

What's up with you and India?

NATO doesn't need Russia, and Russia doesn't need to expand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

They are not mature enough to do this correctly so it could only be done at swordpoint or through absorbing weak countries since that didn't work last time why is it differant now.

---

They are still on the road to democratic freedom, they have just made some bad moves. It would be very different from their tsarist or soviet expansions. It should be done with the utmost delicacy - like the way they have been doing it Link

Or they could just create a CATO of sorts, but I think NATO would benefit everyone. Bringing responsible, hands-off government to every nook and cranny of the planet is a good idea. You do that by slowly expanding working systems or ideas and the security necessary to make them possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

They are still on the road to democratic freedom, they have just made some bad moves. It would be very different from their tsarist or soviet expansions. It should be done with the utmost delicacy - like the way they have been doing it Link

Or they could just create a CATO of sorts, but I think NATO would benefit everyone. Bringing responsible, hands-off government to every nook and cranny of the planet is a good idea. You do that by slowly expanding working systems or ideas and the security necessary to make them possible.

---

Yes well thats the theory but thats all it will ever be cos they themselves would only be interested in running the show just like in the good ol days.

The thread is sidetracking a bit its supposed to be about Georgias possibly NATO membership here is where things get really complicated.

It is now almost certain Georgia will be a member not because of Russia's intervention but because they have tried to claim a veto on a nations right to join.
This is unacceptable for NATO any nation could in theory join I imagine which means other parties placing restrictions is a direct challenge that cannot be allowed to pass.

Funnily enough its likely Georgia might never have got in before this recent invasion. Georgia has as we can see ethic minority problems that can have far reaching problems.
I would be off the opinion Georgia should not be in NATO but now that Russia is trying to call a halt it must be prevented from directing NATO policy therfore seeing as Russia took the two areas of internal strife Georgia is probably stable enough for admittance.

Wouldnt that be hilarious if that turned out true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

It's only about defense in the last instance. It is really about helping people to relax, avoid autocracy and spend money on the things that make the world a better place. It's funny how a military alliance can do that and all anyone hears is "military".

---

This is not the problem I think anyone has with it. It's the fact that you propose using it ideologically to make "the west" and the "wannabe west" a united monolithic hegemony against the whole rest of the world, basically. I would be interested to hear if you would tout the virtues of an Islamic sharia bloc attempting to organize the same thing for the same spoken purposes you just gave.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

This is not the problem I think anyone has with it. It's the fact that you propose using it ideologically to make "the west" and the "wannabe west" a united monolithic hegemony against the whole rest of the world, basically. I would be interested to hear if you would tout the virtues of an Islamic sharia bloc attempting to organize the same thing for the same spoken purposes you just gave.

---

No way. I would be fine with an Near-eastern bloc based on constitutional democratic principles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

They are still on the road to democratic freedom, they have just made some bad moves. It would be very different from their tsarist or soviet expansions. It should be done with the utmost delicacy - like the way they have been doing it Link

Or they could just create a CATO of sorts, but I think NATO would benefit everyone. Bringing responsible, hands-off government to every nook and cranny of the planet is a good idea. You do that by slowly expanding working systems or ideas and the security necessary to make them possible.

---

In the S. Ossetia thread you held the position that Russia is a kleptocracy, that it's control of European energy is dangerous, that this undemocratic, aggressive, resurgent Russia needs to be contained and that NATO should intervene in Georgia, at risk of war, while now your position is that Russia is a natural ally of NATO. I don't get it, why the change?

While I understand what are you trying to say, don't you get it that it's the basically continuation of current policy? Seeking to preserve unipolar world by swallowing a bit of pride and admitting Russia in the fold to contain China and India? What next? To admit China to contain India and Brazil? The reality is that we are moving towards multipolar world, and no rearrangement within the existing block or forming new ones is gonna change that. Russia will still want its say in the world matters, within or out of NATO, as will China, India, Brazil etc...

And ask yourself why do you want Russia in NATO? I guess it's because you want to feel safe from Russia and want Russia to feel safe from NATO. That is something that can be achieved without Russia being in NATO or EU, but it takes time. Changing policies toward Russia would be a first step. And when that mutual trust is achieved, it won't matter whether Russia is or isn't in NATO. That would be just a formality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

In the S. Ossetia thread you held the position that Russia is a kleptocracy, that it's control of European energy is dangerous, that this undemocratic, aggressive, resurgent Russia needs to be contained and that NATO should intervene in Georgia, at risk of war, while now your position is that Russia is a natural ally of NATO. I don't get it, why the change?

While I understand what are you trying to say, don't you get it that it's the basically continuation of current policy? Seeking to preserve unipolar world by swallowing a bit of pride and admitting Russia in the fold to contain China and India? What next? To admit China to contain India and Brazil? The reality is that we are moving towards multipolar world, and no rearrangement within the existing block or forming new ones is gonna change that. Russia will still want its say in the world matters, within or out of NATO, as will China, India, Brazil etc...

And ask yourself why do you want Russia in NATO? I guess it's because you want to feel safe from Russia and want Russia to feel safe from NATO. That is something that can be achieved without Russia being in NATO or EU, but it takes time. Changing policies toward Russia would be a first step. And when that mutual trust is achieved, it won't matter whether Russia is or isn't in NATO. That would be just a formality.

---

I stand by those sentiments. See my opinions on the U.S. government.

I'm looking to ensure military defense for when we are no longer the hegemon. I believe that creating appropriate alliances now can help us deal with the natural reduction in military might that comes with economic might dissipating. I've re-evaluated my priorities. I recognize that NATO has an inherent value for ushering democratic change. If Russia is a threat now, it wasn't 10 years ago - and the best way to ensure that it won't be 10 years from now is to make it feel safe from violent external threats.

The most effective weapon that we have to help nations feel more secure is NATO.

When it comes to Georgia being admitted to NATO my opinion is that should the member states agree on admitting them then yes. There is a lot of conjecture about how Russia will feel threatened, and this could lead to World War. I doubt it. It would put increasing pressure on Russia to behave however.

To those who claim that Georgia cannot offer anything meaningful to NATO and thus should be excluded. If hey meet the criteria for entry into NATO, but have a small military force, that is clearly incapable of defending itself from outside threats, you wish to throw to the lions (or bear in this case).

Democracy is worth defending.

What NATO really offers is security. In other words any member can rely on other members to assist it should it come under threat. Thus the more nations that are involved, the more secure all will be. So long as there are no serious ideological rifts, which could lead to the breakdown of the alliance, membership should be entertained.

While Russia at the moment would not be a valid candidate for entering NATO, should it rediscover the democratic principles that Putin has so completely undermined, I'd be all for them joining.

Of course this is just the idealistic and naive opinion of a young European living the other side of the world (Australia), and I'm underinformed. However, negotiation and agreement are the key issues here. Should member states agree on letting Georgia then that is fine. The argument that they are too small to add anything should not preclude them from the security that NATO offers. (Also note the hypocrisy, Luxembourg is a member, and they are much smaller than Georgia).

Curio

Georgia is not yet a NATO member and already hawks are trying to use Georgia as a warcry against Russia. Very simply, I think Georgia's entry into NATO should be a decision made independently of some people's desires to recreate an old superpower enemy. I'm not assigning that particular slant to anyone here, but it is some of the writing on the wall in global politics, particularly here in the U.S. where coverage of the issue has been very slanted. I also think closer scrutiny should be paid to the fact that Georgia felt free to flex (abuse) military muscle because they had been led to believe that NATO via the U.S. and Bush Admin would back up pretty much any belligerent move they made.

My two cents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

Georgia is not yet a NATO member and already hawks are trying to use Georgia as a warcry against Russia. Very simply, I think Georgia's entry into NATO should be a decision made independently of some people's desires to recreate an old superpower enemy. I'm not assigning that particular slant to anyone here, but it is some of the writing on the wall in global politics, particularly here in the U.S. where coverage of the issue has been very slanted. I also think closer scrutiny should be paid to the fact that Georgia felt free to flex (abuse) military muscle because they had been led to believe that NATO via the U.S. and Bush Admin would back up pretty much any belligerent move they made.

My two cents.

---

We've got plenty of enemies already, why not just get more use out of the ones we have?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

Georgia is not yet a NATO member and already hawks are trying to use Georgia as a warcry against Russia. Very simply, I think Georgia's entry into NATO should be a decision made independently of some people's desires to recreate an old superpower enemy. I'm not assigning that particular slant to anyone here, but it is some of the writing on the wall in global politics, particularly here in the U.S. where coverage of the issue has been very slanted. I also think closer scrutiny should be paid to the fact that Georgia felt free to flex (abuse) military muscle because they had been led to believe that NATO via the U.S. and Bush Admin would back up pretty much any belligerent move they made.

My two cents.

---

Not sure where you get that load of spin from. One would have to be completely ignorant of world history for the last 150 years to believe that. You do understand the Russian policy of destabilization through the use of colonization and ethnic cleansing within strategic districts of former independent states? Actually, to except the Russian claim of defending a belligerent colonial population, one might have to be completely unversed in the history of Russia. There are issues of the EU’s access to strategic recourses as well as free-market access and the survival of several of central Asian republics, as well.


CmacQ

Victory will not be achieved before all of earth's human nations are part of NATO.
At that point we can also finally use NATO to defend against them octosquids, aliens and bacteria.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

We've got plenty of enemies already, why not just get more use out of the ones we have?

---

I have an idea - you could reconcile with them :idea:

Long-term strategy: admit Columbia to NATO, to put the final nail into the concept of the treaty being only for "north atlantic" nations. After that, anyone can join; we ditch the UN, superceded by NATO, which becomes the de-facto League of Democratic Nations (not that Columbia is all that democratic; I just pulled the first sub-equator nation I thought of out of thin air).

Then, Georgia, Ukraine, Russia, China...

Would you prefer Venezuela to Columbia? :tongue:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Would you prefer Venezuela to Columbia? :tongue:

---

Maybe Liberia first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmacq

Actually, to except the Russian claim of defending a belligerent colonial population, one might have to be completely unversed in the history of Russia.

---

...and you would have to be completely unversed in the history of Caucasia to believe that the Georgian government has anything on good intentions.

Then again, everybody here is an expert on foreign affairs. :juggle2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmacq

Not sure where you get that load of spin from. One would have to be completely ignorant of world history for the last 150 years to believe that. You do understand the American policy of destabilization through the use of economic colonization and cultural cleansing within strategic districts of former independent states? Actually, to except the American claim of defending a belligerent colonial population, one might have to be completely unversed in the history of America. There are issues of the EU’s access to strategic recourses as well as free-market access and the survival of several of central Asian republics, as well.


CmacQ

---

There, fixed it for you:beam:

Crossloper,

then can you tell us, for what other cause would Russia invade another country; to protect around 2000 (about 2% of the population) ethnic Russians living there? And Kada-gar, this is why we don’t shy away from truth, and one must then assume you agree with me? It just seems that our poppet states are less maladjusted then those created by others. Due to the nature of my upbringing and cultural heritage I’m of course a bit pragmatic, not so much the fool that doesn’t understand might’s ability to make right. In other words I’m not one to always ask ‘why,’ rather I ask ‘why not.’ Also when America did conduct such a policy, we must all remember that a very large element of said colonial population was typically composed of those then recently washed from the formerly teeming shores of Europe, whom with the exception of the Bear, as seen of late again fallen into paralyzes and pathetic decay. As far as economic colonization, that’s something one must take personal responsibility for themselves.



CmacQ

You seem to have a problem spelling my name, Cmacq (in various threads). It's not that hard... Give it one more shot:)

One life, a thousand, a million.... How many lifes do you have to protect to act defensively? Do you have a working formula for how to calculate human lives, or what?

Russia went in, protected their people, and then withdrew. What's the problem?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

You seem to have a problem spelling my name, Cmacq (in various threads). It's not that hard... Give it one more shot:)

One life, a thousand, a million.... How many lifes do you have to protect to act defensively? Do you have a working formula for how to calculate human lives, or what?

Russia went in, protected their people, and then withdrew. What's the problem?

---

I see, a question one might ask of the Russians? You honestly see no indirect threat to eliminate or control access to, and by extention a source of Western European strategic energy supply? Then I guess its all true; the Russ are simply the peace-loving, peaceful peoples of the ancient Grand Duchy, and through happenstance and no fault of their own the largest Empire in the history of human kind, just fell onto them. If you all aren’t yet, you should look into getting yourselves put on the payroll. It would be more the pity to waste such conviction without any form of compensation.


CmacQ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmacq

I see, a question one might ask of the Russians? You honestly see no indirect threat to eliminate or control access to, and by extention a source of Western European strategic energy supply? Then I guess its all true; the Russ are simply the peace-loving, peaceful peoples of the ancient Grand Duchy, and through happenstance and no fault of their own the largest Empire in the history of human kind, just fell onto them.


CmacQ

---

There's some blowhard over in Russia on a message board typing this exact same thing, about Americans and the fascist they elected twice to renew American imperialism.

I love double standards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

Never happen Russia is too big geographically the E.U. could never pay for all the stuff to build, fix up, reform etc etc. For Russia to enter into membership talks current members would have to approve thats obviously not going to happen for reasons we all already are aware of. Then there is also the problem that Russia governments really see things a bit differant to the rest of us I see nascent democracy they see encirclement of enemies.

---

I know the possibility would be rather weak, but I mentioned it from an confrontational point of view with the USA. With Russia in the EU, it would really become EU vs USA thingy, rather than Russia vs USA plus EU.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

There's some blowhard over in Russia on a message board typing this exact same thing, about Americans and the fascist they elected twice to renew American imperialism.

I love double standards.

---

Are you sure that wasn’t, you???

Please don't get me wrong, I understand America Imperialism very well, as well I know the fascist left and right in the US. However, in the end, after all the spin is said and done, and the BS washed away, it all comes down to whom one wants to overcome the other, and how we all keep from getting crushed in the process. Some are just less honest and much more timid about expressing this, than are others. However, like any junior members of a dysfunctional family, apparently not so timid to condemn a benefactor, while condoning the acts of a malefactor. In the current case it is for each to decide who plays which role.

One should always get something out of picking sides. You see, I embrace the hypocrisy and except it on its own terms. It’s one of human kinds most amusing and favored talents. One might even say, 'I love double standards,' as much as, 'the overly self righteous.'


Sorry, I have to go; a ton of work awaits.




CmacQ

cmacq, I do not support aggression in any form...

However, I do fail to see how this makes Russia the "bad gys", compared to, say, the US.

As you said, might is right, that is how the world works.

Russia in this case was right:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmacq

Please don't get me wrong, I understand America Imperialism very well, as well I know the fascist left and right in the US. However, in the end, after all the spin is said and done, and the BS washed away, it all comes down to whom one wants to overcome the other, and how we all keep from getting crushed in the process.

One should always get something out of picking sides.


CmacQ

---

I just think that mmm let me make up a phrase that might be horribly inaccurate but I'm not used to speaking outside of American political camps, worldwide political conservatives? Or political hawks? Like to press people to come down with simple calls of good and evil, right and wrong, good and bad, friend and foe. When the world is often a lot more nuanced than that. Iran, for instance, offered the exact sort of assistance in Afghanistan and vs. terrorist camps that Pakistan, our "friend", has consistently failed to give since the very beginning. Good guy? Bad guy? Saudi Arabia? Good or bad? You could make arguments for either one.

Don't wanna see Russia steamrolling over people, no. But I don't think we're in a position of tremendous credibility to condemn them for it internationally, without exposing ourselves as completely and utterly hypocritical and self-serving. And over Georgia. Nope, I'm not willing to serve in a draft to fight for Georgia. Are you? Is your country? I know I'm not, and I can only speak for me. But I say if hawks are getting so much wood to fight Russia over Georgia, go volunteer for Georgia's armed forces. I'm not saying that to be glib, I mean it. This is all just talk talk talk around a message board but it's imitating real political life of people trying to recreate power blocs around which to boogeyman and scare us all back into the 80's again. I'm kinda happy to be through with 80's music, aren't the rest of you? :)

America shouldn't be in NATO to begin with. Beyond that Georgia offers nothing other than antagonizment on the bear. If they want there old soviet republics back let them have them. I dont care how many times those nomads and mountains change hands and Im sure the nomads and mountains feel the same way. Let the Russians waste treasure and money fighting pointless wars. Let them run around in a nationalistic fervor. If people are so insistent on projecting Americas power and influence we should do something more constructive. I have no desire to be put smack dab in the middle of a Russian power struggle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

America shouldn't be in NATO to begin with. Beyond that Georgia offers nothing other than antagonizment on the bear. If they want there old soviet republics back let them have them. I dont care how many times those nomads and mountains change hands and Im sure the nomads and mountains feel the same way. Let the Russians waste treasure and money fighting pointless wars. Let them run around in a nationalistic fervor. If people are so insistent on projecting Americas power and influence we should do something more constructive. I have no desire to be put smack dab in the middle of a Russian power struggle.

---

Best contribution in this thread so far....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

America shouldn't be in NATO to begin with. Beyond that Georgia offers nothing other than antagonizment on the bear. If they want there old soviet republics back let them have them. I dont care how many times those nomads and mountains change hands and Im sure the nomads and mountains feel the same way. Let the Russians waste treasure and money fighting pointless wars. Let them run around in a nationalistic fervor. If people are so insistent on projecting Americas power and influence we should do something more constructive. I have no desire to be put smack dab in the middle of a Russian power struggle.

---

Yup, thank you. I agree and well said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tristuskhan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South
America shouldn't be in NATO to begin with.

---

Best contribution in this thread so far....

---

If not the best, at least the most amusing. We all do realize that the US created NATO, to counter the perceived and applied Russian military thread against post WWII Western Europe???



CmacQ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmacq

If not the best, at least the most amusing. We all do realize that the US created NATO?



CmacQ

---

Im well aware of that and thats the reason I cry before I go to bed at night.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmacq

We all do realize that the US created NATO?

---

Yes we do, and that's the reason why the US should cease participating this pointless alliance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Im well aware of that and thats the reason I cry before I go to bed at night.

---

Try getting out more often. Or as I said above, you all should really quit giving it away for free, and get yourselves on the pay roll.


CmacQ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmacq

Try getting out more often.

---

That wont pull the US out of NATO

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

That wont pull the US out of NATO

---

Well, I guess this freelancing stuff, has really got to burn? Good Luck with that.


CmacQ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmacq

Well, I guess this freelancing stuff, has to really got to burn? Good Luck with that.


CmacQ

---

I was bantering up until this point then I lost you.

The more I think about it the more it kind of annoys me. What's with all the European posters who think that the U.S. should use its military and treasury to protect the democracy of some small third rate microcountry? Is Europe completely impotent? Seriously, we in the U.S. have our own issues right now. It makes me steam a little bit how quickly people are eager to volunteer us to war efforts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

The more I think about it the more it kind of annoys me. What's with all the European posters who think that the U.S. should use its military and treasury to protect the democracy of some small third rate microcountry? Is Europe completely impotent? Seriously, we in the U.S. have our own issues right now. It makes me steam a little bit how quickly people are eager to volunteer us to war efforts.

---

The problem is Georgia is not exactly democratic: the 2003 (?) movement replaced an authoritarian regime by another. If Georgia is a true democracy, then Russia is so: same state control on the press, same rights for political opposition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tristuskhan

The problem is Georgia is not exactly democratic: the 2003 (?) movement replaced an authoritarian regime by another. If Georgia is a true democracy, then Russia is so: same state control on the press, same rights for political opposition.

---

I feel exactly the same way as you, but people had argued earlier that democracy was worth defending, ideologically. I agree, ideologically. But I don't want to attack Russia over Georgia just the same that I'm glad Russia didn't attack us over Iraq, frankly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

The more I think about it the more it kind of annoys me. What's with all the European posters who think that the U.S. should use its military and treasury to protect the democracy of some small third rate microcountry? Is Europe completely impotent? Seriously, we in the U.S. have our own issues right now. It makes me steam a little bit how quickly people are eager to volunteer us to war efforts.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

I feel exactly the same way as you, but people had argued earlier that democracy was worth defending, ideologically. I agree, ideologically. But I don't want to attack Russia over Georgia just the same that I'm glad Russia didn't attack us over Iraq, frankly.

---

The issue there being that the US shouldn't have been in Iraq in the first place... but that's beside the point.

As I've said NATO is about mutual defence. The US shouldn't be attacking anyone. Diplomatic pressure is much more in keeping with pacifist goals. But the fact remains that while big countries(like the US and Russia) shouldn't be meddling in smaller, weaker countries' affairs, they do, as we have witness with the American invasion of Iraq, and the Russia invasion of South Ossetia.

Just to point out that I'm not advocating war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gaius Scribonius Curio

The issue there being that the US shouldn't have been in Iraq in the first place... but that's beside the point.

---

I wholeheartedly agree. What I'm saying is, I'm glad a global thermonuclear exchange wasn't initiated over it. Aren't you? Or would you say it was worth it because it was in defense of Iraq's sovereignty and self-determination?

Quote:

---

As I've said NATO is about mutual defence. The US shouldn't be attacking anyone. Diplomatic pressure is much more in keeping with pacifist goals. But the fact remains that while big countries(like the US and Russia) shouldn't be meddling in smaller, weaker countries' affairs, they do, as we have witness with the American invasion of Iraq, and the Russia invasion of South Ossetia.

Just to point out that I'm not advocating war.

---

Well if we're talking about diplomatic pressure, then of course I agree. I do not think that was the vein of where the discussion was, though. Expediting Georgia into NATO membership OR reacting to Russia as if it had attacked a NATO member when Georgia is not one yet, both seem to be paths leading to war as far as I can see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Without a doubt. I want them to shore up support in central Asia at the expense of China and India from NATO's point of view. This is what they seem to be doing naturally without much resistance anyway. I'm interested in creating a balancing act of power with NATO left, right, and center.

---

Uhuh, you realise that the U.S pretty much lost central Asia to an alliance of Beijing and Moscow? Perhaps you ant to read about what happened to all thos basing agreements you used to have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar

Uhuh, you realise that the U.S pretty much lost central Asia to an alliance of Beijing and Moscow? Perhaps you ant to read about what happened to all thos basing agreements you used to have.

---

I am well aware of this. That is why it is of the utmost importance that we offer Russia a more promising and secure alternative before it is too late and the SCO becomes more than a loose agreement between bordering states.

I see the SCO as an unnatural co-op. Those nations have the most to fear from one another. They are the most ethnically diverse, the most naturally competitive and drastically different geographically. I see Russia being over-run by the Chinese in 20 years if it doesn't solidify it's ties with the West ASAP.

What do I know? Fundamentally different totalitarian regimes have nothing to fear from one another if you look back historically... I forgot that we are living at the end of history.

@ Koga No Goshi: No I'm glad that we haven't been absorbed by a gigantic nuclear war.

With Georgia I was theorising that Russia could be persuaded to withdraw, perhaps thats my ridiculous idealism coming through.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

Expediting Georgia into NATO membership OR reacting to Russia as if it had attacked a NATO member when Georgia is not one yet, both seem to be paths leading to war as far as I can see.

---

And unfortunately atm you seem to be right.