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

[rvg]

I kind of said the same when i speculated how i would view the NATO if i were American. Still apparently your leaders aka majority of US voters think that influence in Europe is worth spending certain billions and who are the Euros to complain?

It's not as much about who influences Europe as it is about who doesn't influence Europe. We can't allow another Iron Curtain.

[Sarmatian]

The Manchurian campaign of WW2 was probably the pinnacle of performance of the Russian Army. It's never been that kind of well oiled machine before or since. Winter War was not just a tactical but also a logistical nightmare. Same with the early months of WW2. Same with WW1 and Russo-Japanese war. Russian mentality overall is very prone to screwing things up and not caring. It's just the way they are.

Yeah, Hitler and Napoleon had thoughts along similar lines - we only need to kick the door and the whole rotten edifice will come down.

In reality, after getting the bearings, the Soviet army performed quite good, unparalleled to any other combatant in the war, except Germany between 1939 and 1941. After that we didn't have any conflict even remotely similar in scope to check anyone's performance but they performed well in Afghanistan, despite many western sources claiming that Afghanistan showed the Soviet military was a paper tiger. They performed well in Czechoslovakia, penetrating the border at several hundred different points without anyone noticing. They were in control of the country before west figured out what was happening. In 2008, even though they were unprepared, they pushed back and utterly defeated Georgian army, which was preparing for the offensive for months, within a few days. Now, they've managed to take control of Crimea without firing a single shot.

Those myths often hurt badly those who believed in them.

Yes, actually. If he's kicked out of Crimea by force, Russians themselves will remove him from power. He'll be considered a disgrace no longer fit to rule Russia. As for us marching on Moscow? You don't ever march on Moscow, everybody knows that.

That would hurt his prestige severely, no doubt. Would it be enough and can it be pulled off, within the cost the west is willing to pay...

destabilize Russia from within - we thought this could be done diplomatically, but clearly force is required.

And this is the crux of the problem the west has with Russia, as I believe this opinion is not uncommon among many western, especially American, politicians.

Russia must be destabilized, impoverished, impotent, with no sphere of influence of its own and dependent on the west for money and protection. Every time we press the reset button hoping to convince Russia that it is in its own best interest but every time they fail to see it.

Pro-tip: Stop doing that, accept that Russia will wield significant influence in the world based on its economic and military power and you'll see how the "Problem of Russia" disappears over night. Russia's also not completely at ease with the rise of China, they'd much rather be with Europe, with which they have cultural, political, social, religious and economic ties, but if you poke someone in the eye long enough...

[Kagemusha]

It's not as much about who influences Europe as it is about who doesn't influence Europe. We can't allow another Iron Curtain.

Maybe if the case is such. Why dont you just send those billions as direct monetary aid for European militaries?

[Kagemusha]

That money is taxpayer money, and should be spent on the poor. Europe has come a long way since the Marshal Plan, we just don't need to be there.

Such are World politics..

[Husar]

How do you guys continue to see yourselves as so morally superior? You don't to use your military indutrial complex because of us, but you're happy to sell arms and judge us while we protect you?

First of all, the people who judge you the harshest are usually the ones who also think we should not sell or even produce arms at all.
Secondly, there are a lot of grey areas between that and what the USA are doing.
Thirdly, YOU came here and you founded NATO to protect YOUR interests, no? Hitler never invited you...
Fourthly, I'm not sure why you think the plan of firing tactical nuclear warheads at advancing soviet tanks in the middle of Germany should make Germans incredibly thankful. We were about to lose either way it seems. Better red than dead!

If I was prez I'd pull out right away, leaving only a business card with my number for Merkel to call when she's ready to beg for Abrams and F22s.

Again, your Abrams uses a German gun which we have since improved. We also had a 140mm gun project that was abandoned due to the costs after the Cold War ended. I have no idea why we should beg for your tanks, we produced thousands of Leopards of all kinds. The first tanks the US used in WW1 were french and again, even your most modern one uses European parts. European scientists invented the jet engine and brought you to the moon, your F-22 is only a slight improvement over the Ho-229 with some propaganda added on top!

On the topic of NATO and countries joining it. I read today that part of the reason Russia feels threatened is that the west promised Gorbachev in 1990 not to expand NATO beyond the Elbe river, which was obviously a promise that wasn't kept at all. I'm not sure whether more countries joining would improve anything or just make Russia even more desperate to secure strategically important territory for itself.

[gaelic cowboy]

If I was prez I'd pull out right away, leaving only a business card with my number for Merkel to call when she's ready to beg for Abrams and F22s.

I hear you, but if we pull out now, it'll only make it more difficult to ...umm... squeeze back in and finish the job so it all comes to its proper conclusion.

Dont worry lads the Brits will let ye have the ports and Ireland's "neutrality" will become ignored so America can use a handy refueling point in Shannon.

Its the continentals ye will have to worry about.

[rvg]

Yeah, Hitler and Napoleon had thoughts along similar lines - we only need to kick the door and the whole rotten edifice will come down.

They marched on Moscow. They deserved to get their asses handed back to them on a platter.

In reality, after getting the bearings, the Soviet army performed quite good, unparalleled to any other combatant in the war, except Germany between 1939 and 1941.

After getting the bearings, sure. Russo-Japanese war ended before they had the chance to get the bearings though. Defending against a directed, overwhelming blitzkrieg confined to a very specific region is not exactly a Russian forte. Just gotta know where to stop. Having said that, of course the preparation should presume that the enemy supply chain would be functioning flawlessly.

That would hurt his prestige severely, no doubt. Would it be enough and can it be pulled off, within the cost the west is willing to pay...

If we're drawn into Ukraine, might as well get drawn into Crimea. Just gotta stay out of Russia proper.

[PanzerJaeger]

It exists so that isolationists like Panzer and ICSD can't waste thousands more live by keeping you out for several years AGAIN.

The American politicians of the Post-War years understood the character of their nation, and they understood that the US needed to be forced to do what was morally right to protect the European democracies, because otherwise you wouldn't.

I am certainly no isolationist. I simply believe in the stabilizing power of rational self interest. It is when people begin to talk about moral imperatives that the geopolitical balance goes awry.

The US had and has no moral obligation to protect European democracies. The country was founded on the idea of charting its own path separate and distinct from Europe and spent the majority of its early history fighting to remain independent. The British burned down the White House and came very close to supporting the Confederacy. The fact that the US found it expedient to ally with Britain (and France) during the 20th Century does not make the two nations eternal allies. In the first instance, the US had literally no interest in the outcome of the conflict other than getting its loans paid; in the second, Roosevelt's imperial ambitions forced the nation into the conflict.

Maintaining the sovereignty of Western European nations was... again... expedient as the US and Russia jockeyed for power and influence during the Cold War. However, those days have long since passed. Today, Europe is irrelevant to US interests, and should be left to its own devices. That part of the world has essentially become a retrograde welfare state in decline. Only Germany continues to demonstrate the kind of economic output and development worth fighting to keep in the US sphere of influence, but that is due in large part to unsustainable currency manipulation. US focus and energy should be devoted to the growing battle with China over natural resources; one in which the US is losing badly. The dynamic, growing economies of South America, Asia, and Africa are far more attractive and important to US interests than the stagnation in Europe.

There is absolutely no real threat to Europe proper from Putin's Russia, but in the event of a hypothetical invasion, why should the US be bothered to care about the outcome? The US economy is simply too large to ignore for whoever controls the continent. It is ridiculous that the US has been thrust into the Crimean 'crisis'. Putin returning Crimea to Russia is a European problem, not an American one. The US should be courting Putin, and doing all that it can to break up the new Chinese-Russian co-alignment, just as Kissinger did during the Cold War. If that means allowing Putin to reconstitute the Soviet Union's holdings, why should the US really be concerned?

NATO and the US-Western European alliances are artifacts from a different time that have become unhealthy for both sides. The US is forced to devote precious resources and energy to a part of the world that does not matter any longer and the once-major European powers have been rendered completely impotent. I grew up in the era of the 'Special Relationship', but it is still almost unbelievable to see the political leadership of what was less than a century ago one of the greatest empires in history blather on about being America's bitch... to see it dragged into wars that were clearly meant to further US interests. And when those leaders decided to take the lead in their own third world intervention, they could not even topple a third world, tin pot dictator without dear Uncle Sam stepping in when they ran out of missiles. And they do not dare attempt to take on the incredible military might of Assad's Syria without President Obama's green light. After years of US security guarantees, European nations have so neutered their political and military influence, they can no longer act independently to assert their own interests. It's just pathetic, and Europe can do better.

Both the US and Europe would be strengthened by more independent and assertive European powers. Both sides would be forced to assess and justify alliances and agreements, instead of having to view their geopolitical relations within the constraints of an outdated view of the world. Chances are, the two sides would likely still work together quite a bit, but only if both benefited from it - which is the way it should be.

[rvg]

I am certainly no isolationist... The US had and has no moral obligation to protect European democracies.

I'll give you a good reason to protect Europe: the dollar. It is our main export and our greatest contribution to the world economy. If any single country controls the European continent it will be able to ditch the dollar. EU with its Euro is not a threat because:
1. It's too decentralized
2. It's not our enemy

If Russia or any other totalitarian power takes over Europe, the dollar's world domination will be broken and our economy will more or less go down the toilet. That's why the old USSR and the Eastern Bloc were so dangerous to us: they did not depend on the dollar. Since the fall of the USSR dollar's power has grown tremendously: it would be extremely painful for us if that suddenly changes.
So gear up for war, Panzer, those benjamins won't protect themselves.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I don't see why NATO has to go in order for Europe to bolster its defense spending. NATO has not caused the US to reduce it's own spending.

Europeans think that they don't need to spend money on defense because the US created NATO to deter them from it. Their reluctance to expand militaries have grown from a seed that we had planted out of force. The time has now come for the US to back off a bit in order for Europe to pursue it's own interests.

Do you think that you have BS military capabilities because you don't like power? No, it is because we did not want budding unknown governments in Europe to have power. We feel more comfortable with many of the European governments now than we did after WW2, so we are letting go of the rubber band. Bounc back and match your population, GDP, and strategic location to hard power projection.

[Husar]

How should Austria project power? Build a carrier fleet on a lake and then try to sail as close to China's coast as possible? Build a strategic bomber force? ICBMs?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

How should Austria project power?

The Downhill

They always seem to have the edge, and the rest of the world cannot quite keep up.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So far, I find it interesting that the LEAST valued option is for NATO to continue as is. BR patrons are about evenly divided on "Fold" or "Expand!" No half measures here.

I also find it intriguing that both PVC and ICSD view the treaty as a form of "entrapment" but one says it traps the USA and the other that it traps Europe.....

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Oh get off your high horse. I was born and raised in Russia and intimately know those people. I'm as much of a Russian as any of them. I have earned my right to criticize them and to call things by their real names.

Wait, I thought you were a Syriac Christian?



Regardless, I feel that Panzer's "it's not our business" isolationism - sorry mate but you fit the historical pattern perfectly - proves my point.

You could end up with a real idiot in the White House who thinks that millions of people in dozens of democratic countries have no geo-political value.

[rvg]

Wait, I thought you were a Syriac Christian?

I'm both. The fact I can speak Russian doesn't prevent me from also speaking Aramaic

[Strike For The South]

Regardless, I feel that Panzer's "it's not our business" isolationism - sorry mate but you fit the historical pattern perfectly - proves my point.

You could end up with a real idiot in the White House who thinks that millions of people in dozens of democratic countries have no geo-political value.

Preach

A fascist bully, is a fascist bully and I will not let our own imperfections cloud that.

[Husar]

A fascist bully, is a fascist bully and I will not let our own imperfections cloud that.

That's the problem with the wolf who kept crying wolf or so.

Is a democratic bully better than a fascist bully and do the ones being bullied care?
Is torture by democratic states less torturous?

Europe didn't attack the USA for invading Iraq, why should Europe attack Russia for invading Ukraine?
We should offer them troops to keep the insurgency down. Oh wait, there probably won't be an insurgency because they're actually welcome.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I am certainly no isolationist. I simply believe in the stabilizing power of rational self interest. It is when people begin to talk about moral imperatives that the geopolitical balance goes awry.
...
There is absolutely no real threat to Europe proper from Putin's Russia, but in the event of a hypothetical invasion, why should the US be bothered to care about the outcome? The US economy is simply too large to ignore for whoever controls the continent. It is ridiculous that the US has been thrust into the Crimean 'crisis'. Putin returning Crimea to Russia is a European problem, not an American one. The US should be courting Putin, and doing all that it can to break up the new Chinese-Russian co-alignment, just as Kissinger did during the Cold War. If that means allowing Putin to reconstitute the Soviet Union's holdings, why should the US really be concerned?

Bah. I cannot disagree more.

I have no taste for the realpolitik of supporting dictators grind their own people down. It always seems to end with the dictators collapsing sooner or alter anyway, but with the population hating us as well.

Why should we do such things to fight against China, anyway? China isn't annexing anyone; of course they're not a desperate kleptocracy with a declining population like Russia. Heck, most Chinese citizens like Americans.

And even if we did acquiesce to Putin, who says he'd actually help us against China?

Oh wait, there probably won't be an insurgency because they're actually welcome.

Because the USSR deported the Tartars to Uzbekistan where tens of thousands of them died and replaced them with ethnic Russians.

But oh wait, the US invaded Iraq, boohoo.

Bah, I'm letting your trolling get to me.

CR

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That's the problem with the wolf who kept crying wolf or so.

Is a democratic bully better than a fascist bully and do the ones being bullied care?
Is torture by democratic states less torturous?

Europe didn't attack the USA for invading Iraq, why should Europe attack Russia for invading Ukraine?
We should offer them troops to keep the insurgency down. Oh wait, there probably won't be an insurgency because they're actually welcome.

Putin is still worse.

Our leaders sometimes oppress people - it's Putin's MO, and not just filthy foreigners, either - he opresses Godd Russians too. Never mind the bad Russians.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm both. The fact I can speak Russian doesn't prevent me from also speaking Aramaic

I deduce that you are in the CIA

[Flavius Aetius]

I'll give you a good reason to protect Europe: the dollar. It is our main export and our greatest contribution to the world economy. If any single country controls the European continent it will be able to ditch the dollar. EU with its Euro is not a threat because:
1. It's too decentralized
2. It's not our enemy

But that isn't how currency markets work. It also takes a child's view on the absurd size and heft of the dollar in the global economy. Frankly, this is sensationalist talk. Do you want to tell me about readopting the gold standard now?

As for Nato. Let us pretend that we can keep our bases there after we dissolve NATO (not that far fetched as they really are in everyone's interest). If you are an American you should be ready to throw NATO away with all of the other archaic global institutions that are still around from the Cold War. It is an absurd drain on US resources with very little return for the investment. Now, i'm not saying the Iraq War was right or wrong but the fact that not all NATO countries participated in even the invasion perfectly illustrated the raw, simplified value of the alliance for America. The simple fact of the matter is that the member nations of NATO need the US more than the US needs them. The Libyan conflict highlighted this when the euros needed to ask us for more munitions. At the end of the day NATO countries aren't going to demand we vacate our mutually beneficial bases in their countries if we leave or dissolve NATO but it will sure as hell save America quite a bit of coin.

Looking to the future American foreign policy needs to step off the idealist train and pay a little more attention to pragmatism because it isn't the 90's anymore. The gap between america and her rivals is closing and America needs to realize that new lines have been drawn in the sand. America needs to do an account of all of their proclaimed friends and realize that some of our old friends should be replaced.

(not you mama Britain we love you and the entire commonwealth even if we ran off when we were little)

[Husar]

Because the USSR deported the Tartars to Uzbekistan where tens of thousands of them died and replaced them with ethnic Russians.

Yeah, but that was long ago, doesn't count as I was told. Certainly not Putin's fault.
Noone is blaming Bush for killing the Indians either.

But oh wait, the US invaded Iraq, boohoo.

But oh wait, the Russians annexed Crimea, boohoo.
I mean why should it bother me if Iraq shouldn't?
More people died in the Iraq episode than in Crimea. Way more, so many it's not even funny.
Tell me how Crimea is more of a human tragedy or even a human tragedy at all. How many people had their faces burnt by Molotovs in Crimea and how many in Kiev? Do faces burn with pleasure when neo nazis throw them in the name of freedom and democracy?

I'm still not saying Crimea is a-okay, I'm asking why some people want to start WW3 over it and get their moral outrage meter up far higher than I think is warranted at this point.

Bah, I'm letting your trolling get to me.

CR

If it doesn't agree with American moral superiority, it has to be trolling, yeah right...

Putin is still worse.

Our leaders sometimes oppress people - it's Putin's MO, and not just filthy foreigners, either - he opresses Godd Russians too. Never mind the bad Russians.

So he's just like the many dictators we supported over the years and still support, but he is bad because he's not our puppet?
Israel oppresses a lot of people and we still support it, it's a democracy but the arabian population often doesn't see that as a big plus when they are treated as second class citizens again. And they take land that other people live on and expell them.

[Hax]

Yeah, but that was long ago, doesn't count as I was told. Certainly not Putin's fault.
Noone is blaming Bush for killing the Indians either.

This was seventy years ago. Some of those people are still alive to this day.

A very important difference between the deportation of people in the Soviet Union and and the treatment of the native Americans in the United States is that firstly, the United States acknowledges that it has happened and has made all kinds of concessions towards them as a result of this. Meanwhile, the Russian government refuses to acknowledge that the Baltic states (for example) were annexed illegally and against their will.

[Husar]

This was seventy years ago. Some of those people are still alive to this day.

I was told in another thread that the bay of pigs invasion was also too long ago to count. Some people from then are still alive today as well.

A very important difference between the deportation of people in the Soviet Union and and the treatment of the native Americans in the United States is that firstly, the United States acknowledges that it has happened and has made all kinds of concessions towards them as a result of this. Meanwhile, the Russian government refuses to acknowledge that the Baltic states (for example) were annexed illegally and against their will.

That's because they have to get over the biggest tragedy of the 20th century, the fall of the Soviet Union, first. It happened in their country and it was only twenty five years ago, some of those people are still alive to this day. Some Americans are still not ready to apologize for slavery today, these things need time. You cannot expect Russia to develop in 10 years what took others around 100 years.
If I'm not mistaken most of the really big atrocities of the USSR happened under Stalin, after him the leaders weren't quite nice guys but they progressively became "nicer" until one of them dissolved the USSR. Meanwhile the West hasn't acknowledged anything of that and always sees Stalin when it looks at Putin. Makes sense that the Russians don't care what the West sees because the West only sees what it wants to see.

[Hax]

You cannot compare the Bay of Pigs with the systematic deportation of a group of people to be sent to their deaths.

Did you know that in Estonia, the secret police barged in, told you that you were given 15 minutes, and then they sent you and your entire family away to a place you'd never heard. Keep in mind the first deportations were in June, meaning that many people didn't bring any warm clothes whatsoever and so a great many of them froze to death in Siberia.

That's because they have to get over the biggest tragedy of the 20th century, the fall of the Soviet Union, first. It happened in their country and it was only twenty five years ago, some of those people are still alive to this day.

I think it looks better now.

Some Americans are still not ready to apologize for slavery today, these things need time.

I don't really give what some hick in the Georgia mountains thinks about slavery. This is a matter of statehood and recognition of the terrible atrocities that happened to the peoples under Soviet dominion. Make no mistake, I think the people that suffered the most under the Soviet Union were probably the Russians themselves.

If I'm not mistaken most of the really big atrocities of the USSR happened under Stalin, after him the leaders weren't quite nice guys but they progressively became "nicer" until one of them dissolved the USSR. Meanwhile the West hasn't acknowledged anything of that and always sees Stalin when it looks at Putin.

Yeah, but at the same time the Russian government is still not ready to accept that Stalin was a douchebag of the highest order.


Dude, I wonder why you're so stuck up with the idea that "if the West does it, that means that Russia can do it as well". Even if all what you said just now is exactly the way you make it out to be (because seriously, it's pretty biased), in the end it's got nothing to do with who has the moral high ground. All I know that the last time when Russia started making noises like these, a very great many people suffered.

While I agree that the track record of the United States and the European states in the Middle-East isn't amazing, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq we're not aimed at annexation.

[Greyblades]

But that isn't how currency markets work. It also takes a child's view on the absurd size and heft of the dollar in the global economy. Frankly, this is sensationalist talk. Do you want to tell me about readopting the gold standard now?

As for Nato. Let us pretend that we can keep our bases there after we dissolve NATO (not that far fetched as they really are in everyone's interest). If you are an American you should be ready to throw NATO away with all of the other archaic global institutions that are still around from the Cold War. It is an absurd drain on US resources with very little return for the investment. Now, i'm not saying the Iraq War was right or wrong but the fact that not all NATO countries participated in even the invasion perfectly illustrated the raw, simplified value of the alliance for America. The simple fact of the matter is that the member nations of NATO need the US more than the US needs them. The Libyan conflict highlighted this when the euros needed to ask us for more munitions. At the end of the day NATO countries aren't going to demand we vacate our mutually beneficial bases in their countries if we leave or dissolve NATO but it will sure as hell save America quite a bit of coin.

Looking to the future American foreign policy needs to step off the idealist train and pay a little more attention to pragmatism because it isn't the 90's anymore. The gap between america and her rivals is closing and America needs to realize that new lines have been drawn in the sand. America needs to do an account of all of their proclaimed friends and realize that some of our old friends should be replaced.

(not you mama Britain we love you and the entire commonwealth even if we ran off when we were little)

I might not agree with all you have to say, but I feel obligated to thank you for being one of the the few backroom newcomers in the last year or so that hasnt been fricking nuts.

[Sarmatian]

While I agree that the track record of the United States and the European states in the Middle-East isn't amazing, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq we're not aimed at annexation.

All nations in the world annexed territories. In most cases though, it is easier and less costly to install a puppet regime and support it than to govern directly. I don't understand why is creation of a protectorate so much morally superior to annexation?

[Greyblades]

Because there's a chance with each puppet that the guy propped up actually gives two figs about the people being "protected", whereas forceful annexation nearly always brings in either antagonistic or apathetic governence.

[Sarmatian]

Because there's a small chance with each puppet that the guy propped up actually gives two figs about the people being "protected", whereas annexation pretty much allways brings in either antagonistic or uncaring governence.

On what exactly are you basing this opinion?

Was Cuba better governed with Batista in power than California which was outright annexed?

[Greyblades]

It's a generalization, and I did say "chance"; there's a fair chance as well that the puppet government is as bad or worse than provincial governers assigned through annexation. I'm saying there's usually a better chance a puppet turns out benevolent than the alternative. Plus California wasnt a forceful annexation, they joined the states willingly and dont really come under my previous post.