|
On March 05 2015 04:49 nothingmuch wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2015 04:26 SixStrings wrote:On March 05 2015 03:36 nothingmuch wrote:On March 05 2015 01:46 SixStrings wrote:On March 05 2015 01:02 always_winter wrote:On March 05 2015 00:34 SixStrings wrote: This is a pretty bad situation to be a European now. Should war break loose, we can not adequately defend against Russia.
Since Putin considers us an ally to the USA, he won't think twice about attacking us. Since the USA doesn't consider us an ally, they won't even consider defending us.
So if Putin plays this smart, he won't attack the UK, so the USA won't be involved, and the rest of Europe will be easy pickings. It is a pretty bad situation in Europe right now, but should war break loose, not only could Europe easily defend itself against Russian aggression, but the United States would undoubtedly be part of a combined international coalition which would be in Moscow in less than thirty days. That is the difference in power between NATO-aligned nations and Russia. Article 5 of the North Atlantic treaty specifies an attack on any member-state requires the immediate aid of fellow member-states. This means an attack on Germany would require, by law, an immediate military response by the United States. I'd also like to add that recent Russian provocations in allied air-space have been conducted by WW2-era bombers, which is a fairly accurate depiction of the modernity and readiness of the Russian military. The power disparity between Russia and the United States alone is massive, let alone the United States and her NATO allies. That being said, the fact Putin is still going unchecked in Ukraine is absolutely mind-boggling. Quite honestly, it's a testament to how strong the US-German alliance is, as it was at the behest of Angela Merkel, along with his own advisors, that President Obama decided to allow the cease-fire talks to transpire prior to considering the delivery of lethal aid. I think you overestimate both the military capacities of Europe as well as the reach of the NATO. The only real military force in mainland Europe is France. Germany's forces are pretty meager compared to the size of its population and the other countries simply don't have the population to support a large military. All Russia has to do is nuke key locations in France and Germany, where are large part of Europe's population and military are tightly bundled together, and the rest would be a cakewalk. As to German-American relations: yes, Merkel is sucking up to Obama big time and until TTIP is done and dusted, Obama will make minor concessions. Once there are no more EU-roadblocks to get in the way of American companies dominating the European market, his successor will likely sing a different tune. I'm aware of Article Five, and I have no doubt the US will adhere to it, as long as it's economically viable. Once the US see that costs more to defend Europe than to just pick up the pieces later, who is going to hold them accountable? Luckily you went full retard with your post and included nukes in your scenario. Please wrap your head around the fact that you're arguing about diplomacy/politics in a post nuclear war Europe. Never go full retard. User was warned for this post Calling me a retard a couple more times would help your argument. And how silly of me to assume that Putin could ever use a nuke. Militant dictators have historically been so tame, so why assume the worst? My apologies. I assumed that the expression "go full retard" was more common/ known, especially in the dota community than it apparently is. Or maybe I just misunderstand/use it. To me it's applicable when someone is being really silly. And to illustrate why I think you were just that with your line of reasoning: If nuclear weapons were used in a military conflict between "Europe" and Russia, civilisation as we know it would cease to exist. Arguing troop levels or foreign policy in the face of that fact just seems ridiculous to me.
Its an ad hominem, a meme, and offensive to people with some mental disabilities, which puts it against forum rules three ways. Personal attacks have no place in civilized discourse; argue against people's ideas; don't insult those people.
Not that I disagree with you on the point that SixString's position that Putin might use nukes is very far-fetched.
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
On March 05 2015 04:31 always_winter wrote: Russia perceiving every nation to its West as a probable enemy It really doesn't. The United States and the NATO security alliance are seen as national security issues though.
Any country would react strongly to security threats on its border. Why do you think the Cuban Missile Crisis was such a big deal?
|
On March 05 2015 01:46 SixStrings wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2015 01:02 always_winter wrote:On March 05 2015 00:34 SixStrings wrote: This is a pretty bad situation to be a European now. Should war break loose, we can not adequately defend against Russia.
Since Putin considers us an ally to the USA, he won't think twice about attacking us. Since the USA doesn't consider us an ally, they won't even consider defending us.
So if Putin plays this smart, he won't attack the UK, so the USA won't be involved, and the rest of Europe will be easy pickings. It is a pretty bad situation in Europe right now, but should war break loose, not only could Europe easily defend itself against Russian aggression, but the United States would undoubtedly be part of a combined international coalition which would be in Moscow in less than thirty days. That is the difference in power between NATO-aligned nations and Russia. Article 5 of the North Atlantic treaty specifies an attack on any member-state requires the immediate aid of fellow member-states. This means an attack on Germany would require, by law, an immediate military response by the United States. I'd also like to add that recent Russian provocations in allied air-space have been conducted by WW2-era bombers, which is a fairly accurate depiction of the modernity and readiness of the Russian military. The power disparity between Russia and the United States alone is massive, let alone the United States and her NATO allies. That being said, the fact Putin is still going unchecked in Ukraine is absolutely mind-boggling. Quite honestly, it's a testament to how strong the US-German alliance is, as it was at the behest of Angela Merkel, along with his own advisors, that President Obama decided to allow the cease-fire talks to transpire prior to considering the delivery of lethal aid. I think you overestimate both the military capacities of Europe as well as the reach of the NATO. The only real military force in mainland Europe is France. Germany's forces are pretty meager compared to the size of its population and the other countries simply don't have the population to support a large military. All Russia has to do is nuke key locations in France and Germany, where are large part of Europe's population and military are tightly bundled together, and the rest would be a cakewalk. As to German-American relations: yes, Merkel is sucking up to Obama big time and until TTIP is done and dusted, Obama will make minor concessions. Once there are no more EU-roadblocks to get in the way of American companies dominating the European market, his successor will likely sing a different tune. I'm aware of Article Five, and I have no doubt the US will adhere to it, as long as it's economically viable. Once the US see that costs more to defend Europe than to just pick up the pieces later, who is going to hold them accountable? Letting the biggest economic bloc in the world fall apart and then picking up the pieces is hardly economically viable. Fact is that without Europe the economy would collapse everywhere.
You're also way overestimating Russia. Their economy is as big as Italy even taking into account the increasing military budgets they still can't compete. Their only advantage would be that they have more nukes but there are European countries with nukes as well...
|
This discussion reminds me of an episode from Yes Prime Minister, where Sir Humphrey is trying to get the PM to buy into Trident.
For anyone interested here's one of the scenes - you can youtube the rest. (Ironic that the premise is still relevant) www.youtube.com
|
On March 05 2015 05:26 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2015 04:31 always_winter wrote: Russia perceiving every nation to its West as a probable enemy It really doesn't. The United States and the NATO security alliance are seen as national security issues though. Any country would react strongly to security threats on its border. Why do you think the Cuban Missile Crisis was such a big deal?
The two are not analogous. This is my point.
An openly democratic Ukraine is not a threat to Russia's national security. Nuclear warheads in the possession of a Soviet puppet regime one hundred miles from the American coastline during the Cold War was a very real threat to American national security. These scenarios are not related.
To suggest Ukraine aligning with NATO or the EU would thereby undermine Russia's national security is a false dichotomy. There is a third choice. It is Russia entering the twenty-first century.
EDIT: The irrational security interests of a tyrannical dictator currently living in the Cold War, and currently embarked on a 19th-century land-grabbing campaign, are not equal to actual security concerns of a rational state actor. What Putin perceives to be contrary to Russia's national interests are not equal to reality.
|
On March 05 2015 05:26 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2015 04:31 always_winter wrote: Russia perceiving every nation to its West as a probable enemy It really doesn't. The United States and the NATO security alliance are seen as national security issues though. Any country would react strongly to security threats on its border. Why do you think the Cuban Missile Crisis was such a big deal?
At best it's a chicken-egg problem. Russia sees NATO as a threat, threatening its neighbors (generally with soft power, like gas disputes), these then see Russia as a thread, flocking to NATO, Russia sees NATO as a bigger threat... etc.
Realistically, the Estonian security doctrine has foreseen the Georgian and Ukrainian situations as possible since the beginning of the 90s when we saw what happened to Transnistria. (Not many listened to us until MH17.) Hence we rushed into NATO before Russia could recover enough to start pushing its weight about after the collapse of the Soviet Union. It's not like NATO wanted us to join, in fact, they created various obstacles (the ones for Georgia and Ukraine were impossible to overcome). Even to this day we aren't defended as well as other members because Germany is blocking the deployment of permanent bases in the Baltic states, creating significant logistical nightmares for our defense plans.
|
On March 05 2015 05:37 always_winter wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2015 05:26 LegalLord wrote:On March 05 2015 04:31 always_winter wrote: Russia perceiving every nation to its West as a probable enemy It really doesn't. The United States and the NATO security alliance are seen as national security issues though. Any country would react strongly to security threats on its border. Why do you think the Cuban Missile Crisis was such a big deal? The two are not analogous. This is my point. An openly democratic Ukraine is not a threat to Russia's national security. Nuclear warheads in the possession of a Soviet puppet regime one hundred miles from the American coastline during the Cold War was a very real threat to American national security. These scenarios are not related. To suggest Ukraine aligning with NATO or the EU would thereby undermine Russia's national security is a false dichotomy. There is a third choice. It is Russia entering the twenty-first century. EDIT: The irrational security interests of a tyrannical dictator currently living in the Cold War, and currently embarked on a 19th-century land-grabbing campaign, are not equal to actual security concerns of a rational state actor. What Putin perceives to be contrary to Russia's national interests are not equal to reality. Your conclusions are very naive; things are certainly more complicated than that. Only a small fraction of what's going on appears on the news, so please don't advance such strong claims because you would like for things to retain their fairy-tale simplicity. The issues of Russia's national security or potential hindrance of logistical capabilities are a matter of viewpoint, particularly from a second-person perspective, but also not without their pretexts.
|
Russian Federation4235 Posts
To be honest, much of the propaganda here is specifically anti-US and it's constantly reminding people of american military interventions in the last 20 or so years. Some (if not many) people in Russia live in fear of american bomber planes literally coming and killing them (honestly, do they really have totally nothing to fear?). The guys in the TV tell you that Yugoslavia doesn't even exist as a state anymore, Iraq and Afghanistan are suffering an unprecedented rise of radical, almost unhuman fundamentalism and Libya is a failed state, it's social institutions gone. They also never seem to forget those WMDs that were never found, abused men in Iraqi prisons and national leaders being simply shot dead without court and trial.
Well, I must say that kind of propaganda wouldn't be so goddamn efficient if it wasn't so true. There's not one sole villain and not one sole cause to the state of the world of today.
|
United States40790 Posts
On March 05 2015 03:36 Yoav wrote: No, it's not just propaganda. Sometimes nations go to war for economic reasons, to secure interests, etc. Our support of Iraq in Iran/Iraq war was mostly about securing a security interest. So was the Iceland/UK conflict last century. Falklands war too.
Sometimes nations go to war over ideological matters. The US has historically been big on this, for good or for ill. Our support for coups against communists were ideological, not economic. The first Gulf War was mostly economic, but the second one was clearly ideological. Korea and Vietnam were hardly about US security, and the whole "domino effect" argument to justify it in those terms was always unconvincing. Falklands war was in no way economic. The Argentine invasion was motivated chiefly by the nationalistic desire for a victory to present to the people and the British defence of British soil was motivated for the exact same reasons you'd be motivated for if Russia invaded Alaska.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
their freedom is a threat to your tyranny. obviously same scenario as castro with nukes. get real
|
On March 05 2015 06:28 BluzMan wrote: To be honest, much of the propaganda here is specifically anti-US and it's constantly reminding people of american military interventions in the last 20 or so years. Some (if not many) people in Russia live in fear of american bomber planes literally coming and killing them (honestly, do they really have totally nothing to fear?). The guys in the TV tell you that Yugoslavia doesn't even exist as a state anymore, Iraq and Afghanistan are suffering an unprecedented rise of radical, almost unhuman fundamentalism and Libya is a failed state, it's social institutions gone. They also never seem to forget those WMDs that were never found, abused men in Iraqi prisons and national leaders being simply shot dead without court and trial.
Well, I must say that kind of propaganda wouldn't be so goddamn efficient if it wasn't so true. There's not one sole villain and not one sole cause to the state of the world of today.
yes, they really totally have nothing to fear. and that's coming from someone who jumps on any chance to criticize usa imperialism
also, i dont understand your references to yugoslavia, libya, and even iraq/afghanistan stuff is not local but rather widespread in middle east... WMDs and bullshit invasion of iraq is the only point that can resonate with general public so hard because its based in truth, everything else is much more complicated, in my opinion...
|
On March 05 2015 06:15 Hier wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2015 05:37 always_winter wrote:On March 05 2015 05:26 LegalLord wrote:On March 05 2015 04:31 always_winter wrote: Russia perceiving every nation to its West as a probable enemy It really doesn't. The United States and the NATO security alliance are seen as national security issues though. Any country would react strongly to security threats on its border. Why do you think the Cuban Missile Crisis was such a big deal? The two are not analogous. This is my point. An openly democratic Ukraine is not a threat to Russia's national security. Nuclear warheads in the possession of a Soviet puppet regime one hundred miles from the American coastline during the Cold War was a very real threat to American national security. These scenarios are not related. To suggest Ukraine aligning with NATO or the EU would thereby undermine Russia's national security is a false dichotomy. There is a third choice. It is Russia entering the twenty-first century. EDIT: The irrational security interests of a tyrannical dictator currently living in the Cold War, and currently embarked on a 19th-century land-grabbing campaign, are not equal to actual security concerns of a rational state actor. What Putin perceives to be contrary to Russia's national interests are not equal to reality. Your conclusions are very naive; things are certainly more complicated than that. Only a small fraction of what's going on appears on the news, so please don't advance such strong claims because you would like for things to retain their fairy-tale simplicity. The issues of Russia's national security or potential hindrance of logistical capabilities are a matter of viewpoint, particularly from a second-person perspective, but also not without their pretexts.
Russia's national security interests are absolutely a matter of viewpoint; this does not mean every viewpoint is right, or that since there are opposing viewpoints we can simply write them all off as a wash. Vladimir Putin's perceived national security interests are irrational. His viewpoint is wrong.
Respecting the sovereignty of a democratic nation in the twenty-first century isn't a fairy-tale, it's expected. By any measure of basic human decency it's demanded.
|
but respect for the sovereignty of a non-democratic nation is not to be expected?
what about a quasi-democratic one?
Vladimir Putin's perceived national security interests are irrational. His viewpoint is wrong.
they may or may not be wrong, but are far more rational than the American one in the middle east
|
On March 05 2015 22:57 Kupon3ss wrote: but respect for the sovereignty of a non-democratic nation is not to be expected?
what about a quasi-democratic one?
I mentioned earlier the concept of a false dichotomy: that if one scenario is true, the other must be false; that the two cannot mutually coexist. This is a fallacious argument, although likely your intent was not logical soundness but rather anti-imperialist baiting.
If you have a real argument to present I'd be more than happy to discuss it.
EDIT: Which Middle Eastern policy are you referring to?
|
you've stated before that you don't believe that the sovereignty of non-democratic nations should be respected
my question has nothing to do with a false dichotomy since yours is a very real one, my question is simply where you draw the line, is say Venezuela a democracy - what about modern Iraq, or Russia?
|
On March 05 2015 23:07 Kupon3ss wrote: you've stated before that you don't believe that the sovereignty of non-democratic nations should be respected
my question has nothing to do with a false dichotomy since yours is a very real one, my question is simply where you draw the line, is say Venezuela a democracy - what about modern Iraq, or Russia?
Please quote the statement you're referring to.
|
On March 03 2015 03:48 always_winter wrote:Show nested quote +The loss of national sovereignty in Foreign Policy and Defense is de facto domination. Postwar, the United States worked to diminish the global roles of her European allies, and roll them up into a continental defense unit. The establishment of NATO was not merely a traditional alliance, it was the permanent integration of Western military command structures under American leadership, thereby eroding national military commands. For a while, American domination of SACEUR and SACLANT was tolerated by the British and French, because their global military apparatus gave them opt-outs to American control, and the structure was accepted to place restraints on German remilitarisation. As their roles in the World diminished under American pressure however, they found themselves playing the role of military auxiliaries to European defense. The British accepted this loss of sovereignty, whereas De Gaulle withdrew France from NATO's command structure, and saved French independence, at least for four decades. Your conclusion is based on an irrational assumption: state actors are forced to renounce sovereignty upon adhering to an international system. This is categorically false and has been disproven throughout the annals of history. There's a reason the Iraq War was fought by a "coalition of the willing" and not "America and the Superfriends." How's Quebec this time of year?
|
On March 05 2015 23:15 Kupon3ss wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2015 03:48 always_winter wrote:The loss of national sovereignty in Foreign Policy and Defense is de facto domination. Postwar, the United States worked to diminish the global roles of her European allies, and roll them up into a continental defense unit. The establishment of NATO was not merely a traditional alliance, it was the permanent integration of Western military command structures under American leadership, thereby eroding national military commands. For a while, American domination of SACEUR and SACLANT was tolerated by the British and French, because their global military apparatus gave them opt-outs to American control, and the structure was accepted to place restraints on German remilitarisation. As their roles in the World diminished under American pressure however, they found themselves playing the role of military auxiliaries to European defense. The British accepted this loss of sovereignty, whereas De Gaulle withdrew France from NATO's command structure, and saved French independence, at least for four decades. Your conclusion is based on an irrational assumption: state actors are forced to renounce sovereignty upon adhering to an international system. This is categorically false and has been disproven throughout the annals of history. There's a reason the Iraq War was fought by a "coalition of the willing" and not "America and the Superfriends." How's Quebec this time of year?
I don't see the claim there.
|
On March 05 2015 23:22 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2015 23:15 Kupon3ss wrote:On March 03 2015 03:48 always_winter wrote:The loss of national sovereignty in Foreign Policy and Defense is de facto domination. Postwar, the United States worked to diminish the global roles of her European allies, and roll them up into a continental defense unit. The establishment of NATO was not merely a traditional alliance, it was the permanent integration of Western military command structures under American leadership, thereby eroding national military commands. For a while, American domination of SACEUR and SACLANT was tolerated by the British and French, because their global military apparatus gave them opt-outs to American control, and the structure was accepted to place restraints on German remilitarisation. As their roles in the World diminished under American pressure however, they found themselves playing the role of military auxiliaries to European defense. The British accepted this loss of sovereignty, whereas De Gaulle withdrew France from NATO's command structure, and saved French independence, at least for four decades. Your conclusion is based on an irrational assumption: state actors are forced to renounce sovereignty upon adhering to an international system. This is categorically false and has been disproven throughout the annals of history. There's a reason the Iraq War was fought by a "coalition of the willing" and not "America and the Superfriends." How's Quebec this time of year? I don't see the claim there.
I'm a bit confused myself.
|
First suspects in Nemtsov murder identified — Federal Security Service
Car tied to Nemtsov killing belongs to enterprise serving government bodies The car sought in connection with the murder of Russian opposition leader Boris Nemtsov belongs to a federal state unitary enterprise (FSUE) providing services to the Finance Ministry, Goznak, the Russian state body that prints banknotes, and other agencies, the Finance Ministry said earlier on Wednesday. "The Ford car we are talking about does not belong to the Finance Ministry," the ministry’s press service told TASS. "This is a vehicle of an in-house security service, an independent FSUE providing services to the Finance Ministry, Goznak and other bodies."
"At the moment the FSUE car was crossing the bridge, a patrol vehicle and police officers were already there," the ministry noted.
A number of media outlets reported that the police were looking for the car, which fled the scene and which allegedly belonged to the Russian Finance Ministry.
http://tass.ru/en/russia/780922
|
|
|
|