NATO - a defensive pact - or an aggressive pact?

[Rumpel]

There was a time when it was fashionable to be against NATO.

Now in the time of Putin's aggression we all might realize that NATO is necessary.

What do you think?

 

[Rumpel]

Some info

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO, /ˈneɪtoʊ/; French: Organisation du traité de l'Atlantique nord, OTAN), also called the North Atlantic Alliance, is an intergovernmental military alliance among 28 European countries and 2 North American countries. Established in the aftermath of World War II, the organization implements the North Atlantic Treaty, signed 4 April 1949.[3][4]

NATO constitutes a system of collective security, whereby its independent member states agree to mutual defense in response to an attack by any external party. It was established during the Cold War in response to the threat posed by the Soviet Union. The alliance has remained in place since the end of the Cold War, and has been involved in military operations in the Balkans, the Middle East and North Africa. The NATO headquarters is located in Brussels, Belgium, while the headquarters of Allied Command Operations is near Mons, Belgium.

NATO - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[upsideguy]

There was a time when it was fashionable to be against NATO.

Now in the time of Putin's aggression we all might realize that NATO is necessary.

What do you think?

I think we are seeing the intended purpose of NATO being challenged by Russia AS WELL AS seeing (and will continue to see more of) NATO countries being challenged on what it means to be a part of NATO. Will Russia taunt NATO into a belligerent role in Ukraine? Will the US really go to war over Latvia?

 

[Mr Person]

That's a false choice, and an odd one at that. Why would one expect it to be either aggressive or defensive? NATO was set up opposite the openly expansionist Soviet Union, one of the countries with a newly socialist economy and totalitarian government structure that was sort of dictatorship and sort of oligarchy.

Of course it's both defensive and aggressive. Deter and contain.

 

[Grand Mal]

There was a time when it was fashionable to be against NATO.

Now in the time of Putin's aggression we all might realize that NATO is necessary.

What do you think?

Considering that NATO has only gone into action once, when America was attacked, it would be pretty hard to make a case for them being aggressive.

 

[ttwtt78640]

That's a false choice, and an odd one at that. Why would one expect it to be either aggressive or defensive? NATO was set up opposite the openly expansionist Soviet Union, one of the countries with a newly socialist economy and totalitarian government structure that was sort of dictatorship and sort of oligarchy.

Of course it's both defensive and aggressive. Deter and contain.

How is stopping Russia’s territorial expansion “aggressive”?

 

[Rumpel]

Will Russia taunt NATO into a belligerent role in Ukraine? Will the US really go to war over Latvia?

Good questions ....

 

[Rumpel]

6 out of 9 now say: a defensive pact

 

[MamboDervish]

Will the US really go to war over Latvia?

If Latvia is militarily invaded by Russia, the US should honor its agreement with all of our NATO allies, and defend it militarily.
Otherwise, why are we a member of NATO at all?

 

[Monica33]

NATO -- actually US warmongers -- are reaping the whirlwind in Ukraine .

Cannot officially support the neo Nazis who are not NATO members but are bleating like stuck pigs because their money laundering capital is being taken down .

 

[SkyChief]

The US should never have been a part of NATO according to the founding fathers:

"It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world." - George Washington

"Let our affairs be disentangled from those of all other nations, except as to commerce." - Thomas Jefferson

They knew that permanent alliances could create the potential for foreign interests to trump our own national interests.

Also, NATO was created in 1947 to essentially keep the expansion of the Soviet Union in check. The Soviet Union disbanded in 1991, so there was no longer a need for NATO.

 

[Grand Mal]

If Latvia is militarily invaded by Russia, the US should honor its agreement with all of our NATO allies, and defend it militarily.
Otherwise, why are we a member of NATO at all?

Latvia showed up in Afghanistan after the US had been attacked.

 

[upsideguy]

If Latvia is militarily invaded by Russia, the US should honor its agreement with all of our NATO allies, and defend it militarily.
Otherwise, why are we a member of NATO at all?

I agree. But, will America really risk (and likely engage in) nuclear war over Latvia? That is the question that we could well be wrestling with much sooner than we would like.

 

[Rogue Valley]

Iagree. But, will America really risk (and likely engage in) nuclear war over Latvia? That is the question that we could well be wrestling with much sooner than we would like.

Where do you draw the line? Times Square?

One must think of NATO as one entity. An alliance with no national borders.

 

[iguanaman]

I think we are seeing the intended purpose of NATO being challenged by Russia AS WELL AS seeing (and will continue to see more of) NATO countries being challenged on what it means to be a part of NATO. Will Russia taunt NATO into a belligerent role in Ukraine? Will the US really go to war over Latvia?

The question now is will the rest of the world sit by while Putin murders millions of Ukrainians. Is genocide still tolerable in the 21st century?

 

[upsideguy]

Where do you draw the line? Times Square?

One must think of NATO as one entity. An alliance with no national borders.

I was raising the question that will be the debate ahead. I was not expressing my feelings in the issue.

For the record, I believe we should be 100% into NATO, even if it means the end of the world trying to save Latvia. I don't believe all of my countrymen will feel the same, especially the isolationists.

 

[Grand Mal]

I agree. But, will America really risk (and likely engage in) nuclear war over Latvia? That is the question that we could well be wrestling with much sooner than we would like.

The other side of the coin is would Russia risk nuclear war over Latvia?

 

[upsideguy]

The question now is will the rest of the world sit by while Putin murders millions of Ukrainians. Is genocide still tolerable in the 21st century?

The other side of the coin is would Russia risk nuclear war over Latvia?

MAD has always been the game. That said, rules have to be clear, but then they need to be followed. Should we suddenly jump into the Ukraine game, we would not be following the rules, unless we had made it clear to Russia beforehand under what circumstances by which we would be involved.

That all said, I am all in on arming the Ukrainian military and people, but that is as far as I go.

 

[MaryP]

The US should never have been a part of NATO according to the founding fathers:

"It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world." - George Washington

"Let our affairs be disentangled from those of all other nations, except as to commerce." - Thomas Jefferson

They knew that permanent alliances could create the potential for foreign interests to trump our own national interests.

Also, NATO was created in 1947 to essentially keep the expansion of the Soviet Union in check. The Soviet Union disbanded in 1991, so there was no longer a need for NATO.

Ummm...have you seen the news lately?

 

[upsideguy]

The US should never have been a part of NATO according to the founding fathers:

"It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world." - George Washington

"Let our affairs be disentangled from those of all other nations, except as to commerce." - Thomas Jefferson

They knew that permanent alliances could create the potential for foreign interests to trump our own national interests.

Also, NATO was created in 1947 to essentially keep the expansion of the Soviet Union in check. The Soviet Union disbanded in 1991, so there was no longer a need for NATO.

.... except that Putin is trying to put the band (Soviet Union) back together by force, showing that NATO is needed more than ever.

I appreciate the wise words of our founders. Great insight as to politics in the 18th century when Russia was a one month journey from the United States rather than a 30 minute flight by missile. Isolationism was a practical policy of the 18th century and an ignorant policy in the 21st century.

 

[JMR]

The US should never have been a part of NATO according to the founding fathers:

"It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world." - George Washington

"Let our affairs be disentangled from those of all other nations, except as to commerce." - Thomas Jefferson

They knew that permanent alliances could create the potential for foreign interests to trump our own national interests.

Also, NATO was created in 1947 to essentially keep the expansion of the Soviet Union in check. The Soviet Union disbanded in 1991, so there was no longer a need for NATO.

So Washington and Jefferson would speak against the UN?
It's worth noting that in their time the quickest way from Moscow to New York would be by horseback and boat. No planes, no roads, no phones, no TV. Their advice was good for their times.

 

[Bodi]

There was a time when it was fashionable to be against NATO.

Now in the time of Putin's aggression we all might realize that NATO is necessary.

What do you think?

NATO was always necessary. And good.

 

[Rogue Valley]

The Kremlin is extremely dangerous even with NATO

Imagine Russian expansionism without any NATO check on the Kremlin.

You just know Moldova and Georgia (non NATO nations) are next in Putin's remake of the USSR.

 

[Bodi]

The US should never have been a part of NATO according to the founding fathers:

"It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world." - George Washington

"Let our affairs be disentangled from those of all other nations, except as to commerce." - Thomas Jefferson

They knew that permanent alliances could create the potential for foreign interests to trump our own national interests.

Also, NATO was created in 1947 to essentially keep the expansion of the Soviet Union in check. The Soviet Union disbanded in 1991, so there was no longer a need for NATO.

The US entered into the Treaty of Alliance with France in 1778 and the French and Washington worked together against England.

 

[iguanaman]

The other side of the coin is would Russia risk nuclear war over Latvia?

Yes if Putin was suicidal we would all be dead by now. He does not want to die.