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

[Kagemusha]

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.



I think it looks better now.



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.



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.

Hax. We cant blame modern Russia for the deeds of SU. It is like blaming modern Germany for the deeds of Nazi Germany. Nikita Krushchev criticized Stalin already heavily during 50´s and I do not think modern Russians idolize Stalin, but i can understand that the Great patriotic war is something which is big part of Russian identity still. Demonizing Russia will not get us anywhere and this whole good versus bad talk when it comes to World politics is just naive.

[Sarmatian]

Plus California wasnt a forceful annexation, they joined the states willingly and dont really come under my previous post.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican...93American_War

[Greyblades]

Hrm, a poor choice of words, perhaps I should say "not completely unwanted by the residents" annexation instead of "forceful".

Prior to the U.S. occupation there were approximately 1,500 local Hispanic men (and about 6,500 women and children), commonly called Californios, primarily located in Southern California around Los Angeles.[2] Most of the over 2,000 American immigrants (nearly all adult males) lived in the northern half of California. Most of them approved of the change in government and gave only token resistance to Stockton and Fremont's forces.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquest_of_California

Plus as my statement was a generalization one example doesnt really disprove it.

[Hax]

Hax. We cant blame modern Russia for the deeds of SU. It is like blaming modern Germany for the deeds of Nazi Germany. Nikita Krushchev criticized Stalin already heavily during 50´s and I do not think modern Russians idolize Stalin, but i can understand that the Great patriotic war is something which is big part of Russian identity still. Demonizing Russia will not get us anywhere and this whole good versus bad talk when it comes to World politics is just naive.

First let me clarify one thing: I'm not against the referendum in Crimea per se. Although I believe it was illegal, I don't think terms of national law matter much when it comes to situations like these. I can accept that a majority of the population in Crimea wanted to join with Russia.

Well, eh..there's this.

The difference between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union with regards to Germany and Russia respectively, Russia is the legal successor of the Soviet Union. And yes, while I agree that it's useless to blame the contemporary Russian government for the atrocities inflicted upon their own population, the recent rhetoric in Moscow has become increasingly worrying.

To draw a comparison: how would people respond when Germany had just annexed north-western Poland after a referendum there pointed out that a large majority of the population wanted to reunite with Germany, and at the same time, Germany would start talking about the rights of the German-speaking population in Bohemia. I'm not sure how well that would sit with most people.

but i can understand that the Great patriotic war is something which is big part of Russian identity still.

Explains all the neonazis.

Demonizing Russia will not get us anywhere and this whole good versus bad talk when it comes to World politics is just naive.

I believe Russia to be an increasingly aggressive power, and this has spelled doom for most of their neighbouring countries in the past. I still grieve for the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

..okay, maybe not seriously, but I do find this trend worrying. Do consider that I spend half of my time nowadays in Estonia, so I'm definitely somewhat biased in this matter.

[Husar]

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

I didn't.

I think it looks better now.

It does, it was a test. Putin actually said the fall of the USSR was a tragedy and I also disagree with him.

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.

That might be why Putin doesn't win with 99% of the votes despite doing his best to keep the opposition down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian...election,_2012
Supposedly he even inflated these 63% by busing voters around.

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

Not many Western States admit their mistakes while the people who supported those mistakes are still around. Turkey is a NATO member and still hasn't admitted any genocides, censors the internet and so on. Whether blacks are actually equal in the US today is still being debated, regardless of what the government admitted. We're not treating our immigrants great either. There's a lot of xenophobia that people do not express because a minority dictates what can and can not be said in public somehow. I'm just curious to see what happens when Putin and friends will inevitably be gone, I'd like us not to start WW3 before that.

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.

Of course it's biased, but so is pretty much everything most Westerners say on the matter. I'm exaggerating my position to make a point and maybe some day some people will realize that they are biased themselves. People in the West love to sit on their "moral highground" and tell others how things should be while their own governments do similar things and their press is just as much full of propaganda as the press in countries they view as "inferior". I'm just sick of the attitude that whenever Russia is mentioned people assume that all russians are dumb fools under a dictatorial leader whose every word is a filthy lie while our leaders are all standing up for freedom and democracy all the time and we should go to war now because "the evil" will spread if we don't!!!!11111

If you think that is so, consider that Putin said there are no WMDs in Iraq, America said there are and who did turn out to be lying/wrong about it? Western superiority is not a given just because we were indoctrinated to think that it is.

As for people suffering, this time more people suffered when the pro-west forces made a noise, how many Crimeans were shot during the annexation and how many policemen were shot during the revolution? Ukraine joining the EU will not make anyone more democratic. The EU isn't even democratic enough itself.

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.

Annexation and installing a puppet regime are just two sides of the same coin to me. With the former you install a governor who does what you want and with the latter you call the guy a president/prime minister but he still does what you want. Not to forget that what the population wants should also count to some extent.

[Husar]

Hrm, a poor choice of words, perhaps I should say "not completely unwanted by the residents" annexation instead of "forceful".

So, just like Crimea then?

[Husar]

To draw a comparison: how would people respond when Germany had just annexed north-western Poland after a referendum there pointed out that a large majority of the population wanted to reunite with Germany, and at the same time, Germany would start talking about the rights of the German-speaking population in Bohemia. I'm not sure how well that would sit with most people.

If Poland had just had a Neo-Nazi backed revolution, I would applaud this effort, but there is another problem, there are no Germans there anymore so why would the referendum turn out pro-German and why would we use a rhetoric of bringing our own people home?

So to make another comparison, what do you think would happen if the Communist party of Mexico allied with the drug cartels and expelled the corrupt Mexican government, then invited China and Iran for joint military exercises near the US border?

[Greyblades]

So, just like Crimea then?

Huh, your choice of double post seems to indicate you seem to think that a zinger worthy of such emphasis, yet it only works if I was a great supporter of crimea staying in the ukraine, which I'm not in particular, nor do I believe I expressed otherwise.
Of course seeing as you triple posted you might have just forgotten what the edit button does.

[Sarmatian]

Hrm, a poor choice of words, perhaps I should say "not completely unwanted by the residents" annexation instead of "forceful".

Plus as my statement was a generalization one example doesnt really disprove it.

Actually, since you made the statement, the burden of proof is with you.

I just didn't agree with you. There's nothing to indicate that either is inherently better or worse for the local population. Both can work and both can fail spectacularly.

[Kagemusha]

First let me clarify one thing: I'm not against the referendum in Crimea per se. Although I believe it was illegal, I don't think terms of national law matter much when it comes to situations like these. I can accept that a majority of the population in Crimea wanted to join with Russia.

Well, eh..there's this.

The difference between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union with regards to Germany and Russia respectively, Russia is the legal successor of the Soviet Union. And yes, while I agree that it's useless to blame the contemporary Russian government for the atrocities inflicted upon their own population, the recent rhetoric in Moscow has become increasingly worrying.

To draw a comparison: how would people respond when Germany had just annexed north-western Poland after a referendum there pointed out that a large majority of the population wanted to reunite with Germany, and at the same time, Germany would start talking about the rights of the German-speaking population in Bohemia. I'm not sure how well that would sit with most people.



Explains all the neonazis.



I believe Russia to be an increasingly aggressive power, and this has spelled doom for most of their neighbouring countries in the past. I still grieve for the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

..okay, maybe not seriously, but I do find this trend worrying. Do consider that I spend half of my time nowadays in Estonia, so I'm definitely somewhat biased in this matter.

I also spend most my days in Finland. I am sitting now at Helsinki, less then 300 kilometers from Saint Petersburg. Soviet Union took large swathes of land away from my country, including third largest city of Finland at the time. Still it has nothing to do with modern Russia. What has happened has happened.

I can understand that you are worried as we all should be, but did anyone really think that Russia would simply lay down and die gradually after SU was dissolved? People are now acting like only the West has some sort of mandate to drive their interests home internationally, which i simply cant understand. We cant ignore Russia as World power and at the same time blame them for actions they take. Isolating Russia is not the answer, but recognizing Russia and not trying to undermine them in every chance will quite more likely do the trick. Russians as others are in the end more interested about doing business and living peace, just like most of the rest of us.

Solution to these current problems is that West will have to understand that it can only push so far to Russian interest zone. Baltic countries are now secure inside NATO and attack on one NATO country is attack against them all. Did anybody really think that Russia would give up their sphere of influence at Ukraine, thus completing the expansion of Western sphere of influence to Russian borders everywhere?

[Hax]

That's all very nice and well, but it works under the assumption that Putin is a rational man. I'm not so sure about that.

Moscow expresses concern for Estonia's Russian minority

Amazing timing, too.

[Kagemusha]

That's all very nice and well, but it works under the assumption that Putin is a rational man. I'm not so sure about that.

Moscow expresses concern for Estonia's Russian minority

Amazing timing, too.

Putin is ex KGB Colonel. Cold and calculated and like i have said before i am exactly not fan of him. Russia had a a large military manouvers for land troops a week a go near Finnish border and a large aerial manouver at our borders only days a go. Last week Russia cut off all benefits for the TIR heavy inland trucking from Finland to Russia unilaterally. Do you see me weeping over it? It is just the name of the game.

As NATO country. Estonia is of course going to keep getting heat from Russia as long as the crisis will continue. During this crisis Russia is going to use any method possible in order to apply pressure towards West, just like West is doing towards Russia. You need two to Tango.

[Husar]

Huh, your choice of double post seems to indicate you seem to think that a zinger worthy of such emphasis, yet it only works if I was a great supporter of crimea staying in the ukraine, which I'm not in particular, nor do I believe I expressed otherwise.

It works as long as the right people read it. I'm not arguing against the world and I do not hate you.

Of course seeing as you triple posted you might have just forgotten what the edit button does.

It was still early in the morning in my head and I got carried away when I saw that the thread had progressed half a page while I wrote a single reply. Not to forget that if people post while I edit my post, there's a good chance they will never see what I edited in.

That's all very nice and well, but it works under the assumption that Putin is a rational man. I'm not so sure about that.

Moscow expresses concern for Estonia's Russian minority

Amazing timing, too.

If they want to annex Estonia you can sign me up for the anti-russian rage crowd, I'll even wear my red armband with the funny sign on it if that guarantees that I will be seen as part of a pro-west movement.

What about transnistria? They have already installed their own little dictatorship because that's the way they like it. They have already started a civil war with their former government of Moldova, to which they still belong nominally and they have already 1500 russian soldiers on their territory who apparently stopped the civil war with their presence. Should NATO go in and return Transnistria home to Moldova and why has Russia not annexed it yet? It has been closer to annexation than Crimea for over a decade now and yet it has not happened yet. Neither did I hear about any outrage, although I may have been to young before being outraged about it became too boring for our press.
I have honestly no idea what to think about it.

[Greyblades]

Actually, since you made the statement, the burden of proof is with you.

Yes it is, however you didnt ask for proof you presented a counter point.

I just didn't agree with you. There's nothing to indicate that either is inherently better or worse for the local population. Both can work and both can fail spectacularly.

Yes both can work and both can fail, but I take the factor of nationalistic favouratism: a general increased empathy towards what is seen as a fellow countryman and apply it to the dynamic of governance. I come to the conclusion that a governer, or king or sultan or whatever you call the man that rules the area, that sees his subjects as his countryman will treat them better than some clerk from far away moscow or washington who sees the people he's been told to govern as a bunch of smelly foreigners who only matters to him as long as keeping them in lineg gets him a government paycheck.
There's always exceptions and anomalys of the gentle governer being better to the people under him than the asshole princling who his government replaced but I believe in comparison a puppet will, say, 55 out of a 100 be less inclined to screw over the people than a direct foreign governer.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What about transnistria? They have already installed their own little dictatorship because that's the way they like it. They have already started a civil war with their former government of Moldova, to which they still belong nominally and they have already 1500 russian soldiers on their territory who apparently stopped the civil war with their presence. Should NATO go in and return Transnistria home to Moldova and why has Russia not annexed it yet? It has been closer to annexation than Crimea for over a decade now and yet it has not happened yet. Neither did I hear about any outrage, although I may have been to young before being outraged about it became too boring for our press.
I have honestly no idea what to think about it.

An excellent question - and a worrying one given that Transnistria is part of Moldova - which is to East Germany what Romania is to West Germany. Which is to say, Stalin forcibly separated them prior to WWII - leading directly to the Fascist dictatorship in Romania. The political class in both Romania and Moldova aspire to re-unification, and indeed the flag of Moldova is the Romanian tri-colour with the Moldavian crest added.

The people in both countries are somewhat more wary, but Romania is issuing passports to Moldovians and both sides recognise that, culturally and ethnically Moldovians and Romanians are fundamentally the same.

Now - most of Moldova's industrial base is apparently in Transnistria, and about 40% of the population are Moldovan, 60% Russia. Romania wants all of Moldova and is pushing hard for EU and NATO integration to try and ease re-unification. Just to make the situation stickier, Romania is in NATO and has a mutual defence pact with Moldova, meaning that should Russia attack Romanian forces INSIDE Romania it will trigger WWIII.

Oh - and Putin is considering their application to join Russia, now.

[Sarmatian]

An excellent question - and a worrying one given that Transnistria is part of Moldova - which is to East Germany what Romania is to West Germany. Which is to say, Stalin forcibly separated them prior to WWII - leading directly to the Fascist dictatorship in Romania. The political class in both Romania and Moldova aspire to re-unification, and indeed the flag of Moldova is the Romanian tri-colour with the Moldavian crest added.

The people in both countries are somewhat more wary, but Romania is issuing passports to Moldovians and both sides recognise that, culturally and ethnically Moldovians and Romanians are fundamentally the same.

That's more or less what Russia did in Crimea, although I remember reading about Moldova and the opinion polls over a large period were against unification with Romania. Maybe something changed in the last few years. Personally, I don't care, if they want, l don't mind, if they don't, I also don't mind.


But NATO...

Just to make the situation stickier, Romania is in NATO and has a mutual defence pact with Moldova, meaning that should Russia attack Romanian forces INSIDE Romania it will trigger WWIII.

...doesn't work that way. NATO is obliged to intervene if war is declared on a member state, not on an ally of a member state.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That's more or less what Russia did in Crimea, although I remember reading about Moldova and the opinion polls over a large period were against unification with Romania. Maybe something changed in the last few years. Personally, I don't care, if they want, l don't mind, if they don't, I also don't mind.


But NATO...

...doesn't work that way. NATO is obliged to intervene if war is declared on a member state, not on an ally of a member state.

Let me re-quote myself for you

meaning that should Russia attack Romanian forces INSIDE Romania it will trigger WWIII.

Get it now?

As to the opinion polls, they're not strictly in favour but there are more people with a strongly positive outlook than a negative one, it's not a majority, just the largest minority.

[Sarmatian]

Get it now?

Still doesn't work that way. If Country A is allied with Country B and Country C declares war on Country B, Country A is obliged to declare war on Country C. If country D is in a defensive military alliance with Country A, Country D still isn't required to declare war, even if Country C enters borders of Country A.

Think about it. What you're suggesting is that just by virtue of being allied with a NATO member in a separate agreement, Moldova basically enjoys full protection of NATO, through an alliance with Romania, and none of the responsibilities.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Still doesn't work that way. If Country A is allied with Country B and Country C declares war on Country B, Country A is obliged to declare war on Country C. If country D is in a defensive military alliance with Country A, Country D still isn't required to declare war, even if Country C enters borders of Country A.

Think about it. What you're suggesting is that just by virtue of being allied with a NATO member in a separate agreement, Moldova basically enjoys full protection of NATO, through an alliance with Romania, and none of the responsibilities.

nvm

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Article 5 could be the springboard for such a conflict, though that would not automatically be the case.

Presuming that Moldavan forces seek refuge in Romania and that Russian forces both follow them into Romanian territory and attack Romanian forces during such an operation, then Article 5 would likely be invoked.
If, however, Russian forces attacked Moldavan in Romania but then promptly withdrew without action against Romanian forces, the invocation of Article 5 is more problematic.

Should Moldava seek union with Romania, should Romania agree, and should the EU/NATO recognize that amalgamation, THEN Moldavan territory would be covered as Romanian territory under article 5. That's a lot of should that have not yet happened.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Article 5 could be the springboard for such a conflict, though that would not automatically be the case.

Presuming that Moldavan forces seek refuge in Romania and that Russian forces both follow them into Romanian territory and attack Romanian forces during such an operation, then Article 5 would likely be invoked.
If, however, Russian forces attacked Moldavan in Romania but then promptly withdrew without action against Romanian forces, the invocation of Article 5 is more problematic.

Should Moldava seek union with Romania, should Romania agree, and should the EU/NATO recognize that amalgamation, THEN Moldavan territory would be covered as Romanian territory under article 5. That's a lot of should that have not yet happened.

Add to that - should Romanian forces advance into Moldova, and Russian forces then attack them in Romania - which is the most likely scenario to trigger Article five.

Yes Sarmation - the "mutual Defence Pact" which is not merely an "alliance" is designed to drag Romania into a war with Russia and goad Russia into attacking Romania, thereby triggering a response from NATO. Romania would not risk an alliance with Moldova otherwise.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Still doesn't work that way. If Country A is allied with Country B and Country C declares war on Country B, Country A is obliged to declare war on Country C. If country D is in a defensive military alliance with Country A, Country D still isn't required to declare war, even if Country C enters borders of Country A.

Think about it. What you're suggesting is that just by virtue of being allied with a NATO member in a separate agreement, Moldova basically enjoys full protection of NATO, through an alliance with Romania, and none of the responsibilities.

Actually you know what - I'm going to quote you, just so I can quote myself at you again.

meaning that should Russia attack Romanian forces INSIDE Romania it will trigger WWIII.

See that word in caps?

See it the third time?

What's the point responding to my post if you haven't read it.

[Sarmatian]

See that word in caps?

See it the third time?

What's the point responding to my post if you haven't read it.

I've read it the first time. The aggressor in a war isn't determined by the territory where the war is fought. In WW2, the war wasn't fought on US soil, rather US was fighting it on German and Japanese soil. That doesn't make USA the aggressor in the war.

So, if Romania declares war on Russia, and Russian army repels them and crosses the border into Romania in order to defeat them, NATO still isn't obligated to declare war on Russia. They may decide to do it, but they're not obligated.

[HoreTore]

There are no obligations in politics.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I've read it the first time. The aggressor in a war isn't determined by the territory where the war is fought. In WW2, the war wasn't fought on US soil, rather US was fighting it on German and Japanese soil. That doesn't make USA the aggressor in the war.

So, if Romania declares war on Russia, and Russian army repels them and crosses the border into Romania in order to defeat them, NATO still isn't obligated to declare war on Russia. They may decide to do it, but they're not obligated.

Romania isn't going to declare war - it'll just move troops into Moldova's territory - Russia will oblige by attacking those troops without declaring war. All it takes is one Russian missile to land on Romanian troops in Moldova - or to hit Romanian troops whilst being aimed at Moldovian troops - and Romania can invoke the NATO treaty. An attack on Romanian troops in Romania would oblige NATO to respond militarily, but any attack on Romanian troops will at least force NATO leaders to "consult", so even then Russia cannot rely on a complete lack of response from NATO.

Basically - the Romanian-Moldovian pact is designed to make it that much harder for Russia to do in Transnistria what it did in Crimea.

More to the point - your have your example backwards - you said the US was no the aggressor, but according to your logic it was because it attacked Germany, which had not attacked the US, due to Germany's attack on France and Britain. Romania won't be attacking Russia or crossing into Russian territory - Transnistria is in Moldova.

There are no obligations in politics.

Ah - but this is foreign relations, not politics.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

An attack on Romanian troops in Romania would oblige NATO to respond militarily, but any attack on Romanian troops will at least force NATO leaders to "consult", so even then Russia cannot rely on a complete lack of response from NATO...

Unless the other NATO powers had specifically advised Romania that they would not support Romanian efforts outside the extent borders which, in fairness to Sarmatian's general point, might well be the NATO attitude.

[Pannonian]

Unless the other NATO powers had specifically advised Romania that they would not support Romanian efforts outside the extent borders which, in fairness to Sarmatian's general point, might well be the NATO attitude.

A comparable case might be the US troops in Korea. Would NATO be obliged by treaty to respond if North Korea steamroller the US troops there? My guess would be that it's outside the treaty's remit, and any response would be volunteers only.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

A comparable case might be the US troops in Korea. Would NATO be obliged by treaty to respond if North Korea steamroller the US troops there? My guess would be that it's outside the treaty's remit, and any response would be volunteers only.

Actually, SK is outside the NATO agreement because of geography. IIRC, the agreement is limited to the geographic borders of those signatories and specifies that anything outside the North Atlantic region is not involved.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Actually, SK is outside the NATO agreement because of geography. IIRC, the agreement is limited to the geographic borders of those signatories and specifies that anything outside the North Atlantic region is not involved.

That's correct - likewise the Falklands are outside the geographic limits even though the Argentine attack otherwise qualified to trigger the treaty. It's notable that, even so, France and America were quietly accommodating in many ways. Which is nice, but had the treaty covered the Falklands, there would have been no war.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The Falklands was a cocking shock up in many ways.

1st, Had it been an "Atlantic" treaty and not a "North Atlantic" treaty, you are probably correct as to the deterrence factor.

2nd, I think we failed the special relationship. Perhaps it was wrong of us to develop the special relationship -- there are some even today who feel that Washington's Benign Isolationism and/or Monroe's Europe Keep Out doctrines would be the better way to go. Nevertheless, having entered into the special relationship, when you were attacked in the Falklands we should have issued a joint ultimatum to the Argentines and backed it up with CVNs supporting the BEF as needed. We certainly didn't impede the British effort in that conflict but we aided it a bit fecklessly.