NATO is Now Dead (3 Viewers)

[Surrealistik]

Something being “unserious” has never, ever stopped the U.S. from doing it.

Yeah, if that were true there wouldn’t be ridiculous claims about Russia having lost “over a million dead” or whatever being presented here.

We’ve heard those exact claims presented for over three years now. It hasn’t stopped the Russians from repeatedly winning battle after battle.

We can hash out what losses and wins are real or imagined for pages; I'm not interested. However, as I've pointed out to you in the past, per uncontestable facts, Russia at its current, laughably glacial rate of advance would take close to 14 years to conquer merely Eastern Ukraine while its economy suffers greatly without having any backstop in the way Ukraine does. Do you really imagine, despite the rather justified pearl clutching of the Russian central bank, that it has nearly enough gas in the tank to last that long?

Fundamentally, as a supporter and defender of Russia, you are banking on Western support falling away from Ukraine before Russia faces economic crisis or a depletion of its political will; per the facts on the ground I would not be so sanguine about that panning out.

 

[SkyChief]

Uh huh.
I'm sorry, but what?

My recollection of events is obviously a lot better than yours. On May 25, 2017, President Trump attended a NATO summit in Brussels, Belgium, where he met with other Heads of State.

"[NATO] Member nations are still not paying what they should be paying - this is not fair to the people and taxpayers of the United States."

Trump scolded the deadbeat countries, and although there was some expected kicking and tantrums, the delinquent member states begrudgingly complied. . . . OR at least they promised to. Later we discovered that although they ramped up their military spending somewhat, they still were not meeting their obligations.

Not sure I buy that.

Honestly, I don't care if you buy it, or not. Scout's honor.

But we don't. seem to care much about what the founding fathers said these days anyway...

Speak for yourself. My circle of friends and colleagues revere the words of the Founding Fathers. (I always try to surround myself with good people).
Anyways, NATO is now dead, and the U.S. should steer clear of any future entangling alliances.

 

[Tigerace117]

We can hash out what losses and wins are real or imagined for pages; I'm not interested. However, as I've pointed out to you in the past, per uncontestable facts, Russia at its current, laughably glacial rate of advance would take close to 14 years to conquer merely Eastern Ukraine while its economy suffers greatly without having any backstop in the way Ukraine does. Do you really imagine, despite the rather justified pearl clutching of the Russian central bank, that it has nearly enough gas in the tank to last that long?

Fundamentally, as a supporter and defender of Russia, you are banking on Western support falling away from Ukraine before Russia faces economic crisis or a depletion of its political will; per the facts on the ground I would not be so sanguine about that panning out.

The Russians have already taken plenty of eastern Ukraine; they don’t even need “all of eastern Ukraine”(however one defines that) to achieve their main goal.

I know the much vaunted “invincible” Western weaponry has largely been reduced to incinerated wrecks without breaking the stalemate, which renders said predictions even more hilarious.

Oh, I am well aware America is counting on Canada hurling down its weapons and flags and embracing it as a “liberator”
in the name of fighting Russia.

The same people claiming Trump wouldn’t do any any such thing… were also claiming America wouldn’t re-elect Trump.

 

[Juin]

Sure, if putin gains access to Ukraine's resources AND is no longer having to fight Ukrainians in that country.

The west dwarfs Russia economically, and at present Ukraine and the west have all of Ukraine's resources to prosecute the war against Russia. Its a stalemate. So I will argue that I see no reason why Russian access will do for Russia what it did not do for the west

Similar to Hitler's gaining access to Czechoslovakia's munitions industry when he was given so much of that country.

That is also a caution to Russians. They are also facing Germans. Hitler was German, not Russian. German tanks are in the field attacking Russians. Ukrainian resources can also serve Germans

 

[Grand Mal]

Good! R.I.P.

NATO should have been disbanded in 1991, when the Soviet Union was disbanded. Once the Soviet Union dissolved, there was no longer any need for NATO.

Europe can form a new military coalition if they want, but the U.S. should stay out of that coalition.

Nobody cares if the US abandons NATO. Good riddance. The last thing NATO needs is a seat at the table occupied by Trumps attitude.
Good riddance.

 

[Surrealistik]

The Russians have already taken plenty of eastern Ukraine; they don’t even need “all of eastern Ukraine”(however one defines that) to achieve their main goal.

Their main goal, besides checking the growth of NATO per Putin's own claims, which has already demonstrably failed, appears to be the conquest of Ukraine, or at the very least its vassalization; since their march on Kyiv was routed and failed utterly, it appears they are content to merely settle with its eastern portions; given the time line involved to conquer them, it will fall short even of that, and Russia will, at best, walk away with a landgrab that is a small fraction of its clear initial ambitions.

I know the much vaunted “invincible” Western weaponry has largely been reduced to incinerated wrecks without breaking the stalemate, which renders said predictions even more hilarious.

I don't pretend that Western weaponry is invincible, but it, along with Russian incompetence and corruption, and Ukraine's early and effective adoption of massed drone warfare, is overwhelmingly and provably responsible for that demonstrably glacial rate of advance despite the vastly greater strength of Russia's army. Further, I don't know which predictions it renders hilarious, but the amount of economic bleed and loss it has imposed on Russia, and Russia's inability to sustain that long term, certainly isn't one of them.

Oh, I am well aware America is counting on Canada hurling down its weapons and flags and embracing it as a “liberator”
in the name of fighting Russia.

The same people claiming Trump wouldn’t do any any such thing… were also claiming America wouldn’t re-elect Trump.

There will not be an American annexation of Canada, and even in the extremely unlikely event there was, it doesn't in anyway justify anything Russia has done to Ukraine, nor would it diminish my advocacy for the latter's resistance. If anything it would only enhance my support of it out of solidarity of being attacked and oppressed by a more powerful, ethically bankrupt bully.

 

[BabaVoss]

My recollection of events is obviously a lot better than yours. On May 25, 2017, President Trump attended a NATO summit in Brussels, Belgium, where he met with other Heads of State.

"[NATO] Member nations are still not paying what they should be paying - this is not fair to the people and taxpayers of the United States."

Trump scolded the deadbeat countries, and although there was some expected kicking and tantrums, the delinquent member states begrudgingly complied. . . . OR at least they promised to. Later we discovered that although they ramped up their military spending somewhat, they still were not meeting their obligations.

Trump says a lot of bullshit.
The us president does not run NATO, nor does he have any standing to scold or kick the ass of any other member countries.
The obligations of NATO members are guidelines, not guaranteed commitments.
It’s bullshit by trump.

Honestly, I don't care if you buy it, or not. Scout's honor.

Ok.

Speak for yourself. My circle of friends and colleagues revere the words of the Founding Fathers.

Again, I’m not buying it. Many of your brethren routinely support trump in his ongoing disregard for our laws.
Have you even read the Constitution?

(I always try to surround myself with good people).
Anyways, NATO is now dead, and the U.S. should steer clear of any future entangling alliances.

NATO is not dead. That’s just more bullshit. But the US is quickly ruining out of sure allies, as we have assured the world that we are now unstable and unreliable. It’s not a good situation.

 

[SkyChief]

Trump says a lot of bullshit.
The us president does not run NATO, nor does he have any standing to scold or kick the ass of any other member countries.
The obligations of NATO members are guidelines, not guaranteed commitments.
It’s bullshit by trump.

ok.

Again, I’m not buying it.

Again, I don't care. Whether you accept the truth or not is irrelevant. If you don't like the truth, and don't like facts, then you can ignore them. Pretend that they don't exist - I don't care.

Many of your brethren routinely support trump in his ongoing disregard for our laws.

My brethren tower over your brethren - intellectually, morally and politically.

Have you even read the Constitution?

I see this nonsense a lot on this forum, where someone incapable of formulating an intelligent argument asks this type of playground taunt question to put the opponent on the defensive. It's juvenile, and makes the person asking the taunt question look really foolish.

This thread is not about the Constitution - it's about the death of NATO. The Constitution has nothing to do with NATO, so your question is dismissed.

NATO is not dead.

Effectively it is. It can now be reformed, restructured, redefined, and renamed. But leave the U.S. out of it. Europe can do it on their own - - they don't need the U.S to be their daddy anymore.

That’s just more bullshit. But the US is quickly ruining out of sure allies, as we have assured the world that we are now unstable and unreliable. It’s not a good situation.

Ok. But still, the U.S. should steer clear of entangling alliances. It doesn't get any more entangling than NATO (or whatever multi-national military alliance might take its place)

 

[Serenity]

It's a different world now.

America has already shown their allies that they can't be trusted under a Trump administration.

Believe them.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

They were idiots for giving up their nukes.

Uhhh yeahNO.
WE were idiots for demanding they give up their nukes.
Furthermore, Ukraine should now go the Israeli route...GET nukes and then refuse to confirm or deny having them.
We made a treaty to defend them in exchange FOR giving up their nukes and then WE BROKE that treaty, so it's interesting that you talk of mulligans while giving the USA a mulligan for breaking a treaty, one which may have very well been the most important treaty in modern European history, a treaty which, once broken, now permanently labels us as untrustworthy and unreliable in time of dire need.
Anyone who underestimates or sugar coats Russia's intent on sweeping through Europe is probably not old enough to remember when that was the reality.

NATO isn't broken, America's word and honor are, and ten generations hence, children will still be taught about how the leading democracy in the world in the 21st Century made promises they never intended to keep. If anything, NATO will very likely continue on without our help if need be, and will be strengthened to the point where member nations can tell us to go pound sand if we don't like the direction they are taking.

You may now go back to yelling "BANDERA!!! BANDERA!!! BANDERA!!!"

 

[BabaVoss]

Again, I don't care.

Obviously.

Whether you accept the truth or not is irrelevant.

Truth I can and do accept. But I do have an excellent bullshit detector. And you have spoken no truth.

My brethren tower over your brethren - intellectually, morally and politically.

That's funny. Oh, sorry, that was impolite. Let just say that I've not met any of them. None that meet that description. At all.

I see this nonsense a lot on this forum, where someone incapable of formulating an intelligent argument asks this type of playground taunt question to put the opponent on the defensive.

Do you really think you made an intelligent argument???

Effectively it is.

The US is a NATO member as of today. Who knows what the grifter in chief will do with that, though.
The relatively thought-free noise posted in the opinion piece the OP posted wasn't worth the 5 minutes it took to read.
There would have been more value spending that time filling a fingernail.

 

[Exquisitor]

NATO isn't broken, America's word and honor are, and ten generations hence, children will still be taught about how the leading democracy in the world in the 21st Century made promises they never intended to keep. If anything, NATO will very likely continue on without our help if need be, and will be strengthened to the point where member nations can tell us to go pound sand if we don't like the direction they are taking.

Well, there you go.

 

[Tigerace117]

Their main goal, besides checking the growth of NATO per Putin's own claims, which has already demonstrably failed, appears to be the conquest of Ukraine, or at the very least its vassalization; since their march on Kyiv was routed and failed utterly, it appears they are content to merely settle with its eastern portions; given the time line involved to conquer them, it will fall short even of that, and Russia will, at best, walk away with a landgrab that is a small fraction of its clear initial ambitions.

I don't pretend that Western weaponry is invincible, but it, along with Russian incompetence and corruption, and Ukraine's early and effective adoption of massed drone warfare, is overwhelmingly and provably responsible for that demonstrably glacial rate of advance despite the vastly greater strength of Russia's army. Further, I don't know which predictions it renders hilarious, but the amount of economic bleed and loss it has imposed on Russia, and Russia's inability to sustain that long term, certainly isn't one of them.

There will not be an American annexation of Canada, and even in the extremely unlikely event there was, it doesn't in anyway justify anything Russia has done to Ukraine, nor would it diminish my advocacy for the latter's resistance. If anything it would only enhance my support of it out of solidarity of being attacked and oppressed by a more powerful, ethically bankrupt bully.

NATO’s “growth” is effectively meaningless at this point, because the United States is repeatedly threatening to annex member states. The only reason countries haven’t left is NATO doesn’t let you leave.

Yeah, I keep hearing all those silly claims about Russia wanting to conquer Europe, or the world, or whatever, and funny how there’s zero evidence to ever back them up.

Gee, they’ve proven competent enough to defeat Ukraine’s offensives for well over a year now despite Ukraine supposedly having the “best equipment in the world” supplied to it.

“Vastly greater”? Not if your claim about their supposed incompetence were true.

Your willingness to sacrifice your country in the name of fighting some hypothetical Russian “invasion of Europe” is noted.

 

[Airyaman]

How is it dumb?

We could use allies in our issues with China, and not appease the aggressor here as China looks to Taiwan.

Except now China is more popular than the US!

 

[reinaert]

It is in the interest of the U.S., but the main responsibility should lie with Europe. And that's the current problem with NATO. Far too many nations have used NATO as an excuse to slack on their own defense capabilities.

How do you define "slacked"? Is it strictly a matter of spending?

 

[reinaert]

because his warring cant even get past the Dnieper river - much less any NATO state

You hope...

 

[Peter]

Norway has been a NATO member for decades.

Yep, the UK does loads and loads of NATO training with Norway for arctic warfare.

 

[j brown's body]

My recollection of events is obviously a lot better than yours. On May 25, 2017, President Trump attended a NATO summit in Brussels, Belgium, where he met with other Heads of State.

"[NATO] Member nations are still not paying what they should be paying - this is not fair to the people and taxpayers of the United States."

Trump scolded the deadbeat countries, and although there was some expected kicking and tantrums, the delinquent member states begrudgingly complied. . . . OR at least they promised to. Later we discovered that although they ramped up their military spending somewhat, they still were not meeting their obligations.

Honestly, I don't care if you buy it, or not. Scout's honor.

Speak for yourself. My circle of friends and colleagues revere the words of the Founding Fathers. (I always try to surround myself with good people).
Anyways, NATO is now dead, and the U.S. should steer clear of any future entangling alliances.

Not caring to see my country be so punatively petty. Our allies are one of our greatest strengths in our power. We dismantle that at our own peril.

 

[NJBob]

…some hypothetical Russian “invasion of Europe” is noted.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is hypothetical?

 

[Surrealistik]

NATO’s “growth” is effectively meaningless at this point, because the United States is repeatedly threatening to annex member states. The only reason countries haven’t left is NATO doesn’t let you leave.

For starters, Trump's absurd rhetoric changes nothing with respect to NATO's status. Further, any member state is free to leave NATO as they like; the primary reason countries haven't left, besides the security guarantees, is that none have ever actually attempted to, despite there being some that had considered it.

Yeah, I keep hearing all those silly claims about Russia wanting to conquer Europe, or the world, or whatever, and funny how there’s zero evidence to ever back them up.

I never said anything about Russia wanting to conquer Europe; it did however, very much have its aims on conquering or vassalizing the whole of Ukraine.

Gee, they’ve proven competent enough to defeat Ukraine’s offensives for well over a year now despite Ukraine supposedly having the “best equipment in the world” supplied to it.

“Vastly greater”? Not if your claim about their supposed incompetence were true.

And Ukraine has defeated many of their offensive as well, and at great cost to Russia.

The fact is that yes, from the outset of the war, the Russian army was vastly greater in terms of men and materiel; it is through Ukrainian ingenuity, Russian incompetence and Western help that they've managed to factually slow the pace of advance, despite these overwhelming odds and advantages, to a glacial crawl.

Your willingness to sacrifice your country in the name of fighting some hypothetical Russian “invasion of Europe” is noted.

I'm not sure how rightly calling out Russia for blatant criminality and an unethical invasion is tantamount to 'sacrificing my country'.

 

[Rogue Valley]

I know people serving in NATO. They assure me NATO is alive and kicking.

Re-arming to meet the Russian threat. Finland has closed its eastern border and 4 crossing points with Russia indefinitely.

That said, Ukraine's former Supreme Military Commander said the Alliance needs to up its game, and quickly....

Ukraine's former commander in chief warns that modern warfare is 'far from what NATO is now operating'

Ukraine's former top military commander, Valerii Zaluzhnyi, has warned that NATO's warfare model is outdated and needs a major overhaul.

www.businessinsider.com

 

[gbg3]

How do you define "slacked"? Is it strictly a matter of spending?

I define it as a lack of capabilities. And for sure, those capabilities are costly, but crucial.

 

[gbg3]

Anyways, NATO is now dead, and the U.S. should steer clear of any future entangling alliances.

I tend to agree. The U.S. should not have an "obligation" which invites other countries to shirk theirs.

The U.S. is very capable and can certainly choose to help significantly when and if it decides it makes sense based on the analysis of the U.S. and not some obligation to countries who decided there was no need to take care of themselves because the U.S. would do all the heavy lifting in the defense of the western world. The western world is a much stronger entity if everyone ups their game and their preparedness. That would be a healthy and better scenario than this NATO mess.

 

[gbg3]

Nobody cares if the US abandons NATO. Good riddance. The last thing NATO needs is a seat at the table occupied by Trumps attitude.
Good riddance.

Serious question.

A couple months ago, with Canada feeling very uneasy about Trump winning and Canada's concerns about NATO's future, there was a lot of talk about Canada forming new defense alliances with Europe. There were a number of group meetings with several European countries - and Trudeau definitely wanted to and did attend.

Then, those meetings just kind of quietly ended. Did anything (actual, besides meeting attendance) come of it for Canada, beyond Trudeau attending meetings?

 

[gbg3]

Yep, the UK does loads and loads of NATO training with Norway for arctic warfare.

That certainly doesn't surprise me about the UK. I believe the UK has long been serious about their own preparedness.