NATO is Now Dead (1 Viewer)

[Callen]

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?

Definitely ongoing. I think the EU will look at Canada as a more reliable partner under Carney than they did Trudeau. Carney is committed to upping our NATO funding and strengthening our European ties.

Canada and Europe are collaborating on defence. What that might look like.

As U.S. President Donald Trump continues to cast doubt on the future of the NATO military alliance, Canada is looking to partner with the European Union on defence.

www.ctvnews.ca

 

[Grand Mal]

So you’ve got precisely nothing. Noted.

Aww, someone doesn’t like having to face up to the fact Finland “escaped” by begging the Soviets for mercy. Too ****ing bad.

My ex mother-in-law was old-country German and had 4 brothers in the German army. One had been stationed on an island in the Baltic near another island occupied by the Russians and they used to trade artillery fire now and then. They realized one day they hadn't heard from the Russkies for awhile so they sent a unit to see if they were still there. The Finns had come in the night and killed them all, many with knives in their bunks.

 

[Grand Mal]

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?

I don't know. Haven't heard.
I don't see NATO being replaced. There's no route that I know of to expell a member nation but the US could just be excluded. Trumps open contempt for the alliance makes American involvement counter-productive. It sounds pretty clear that the USA considers it's NATO membership to be an unnecessary burden. Best thing is probably Trump withdrawing the American participation and closing all its facilities in NATO countries.

 

[NJBob]

So you’ve got precisely nothing. Noted.

Aww, someone doesn’t like having to face up to the fact Finland “escaped” by begging the Soviets for mercy. Too ****ing bad.

According to Khrushchev the Soviet Union lost a million men during the Winter War. Sure, the Soviets won, but Finland was never conquered.

 

[gbg3]

I don't know. Haven't heard.
I don't see NATO being replaced. There's no route that I know of to expell a member nation but the US could just be excluded. Trumps open contempt for the alliance makes American involvement counter-productive. It sounds pretty clear that the USA considers it's NATO membership to be an unnecessary burden. Best thing is probably Trump withdrawing the American participation and closing all its facilities in NATO countries.

As far as closing facilities in NATO countries, I think that would be an individual discussion between each country (where a facility is located) and the U.S. I can envision a situation where a country might want a U.S. facility to remain and the U.S. might agree that is advantageous. Frankly, I'd love to see the U.S. be able to work individually with the individual countries within NATO rather that the group. Some of them are good, valuable, and very worthwhile defense contributors.

 

[Grand Mal]

As far as closing facilities in NATO countries, I think that would be an individual discussion between each country (where a facility is located) and the U.S. I can envision a situation where a country might want a U.S. facility to remain and the U.S. might agree that is advantageous.

What the US wants and what the local nation wants aren't the same. Just ask an Okinawan.

Frankly, I'd love to see the U.S. be able to work individually with the individual countries within NATO rather that the group. Some of them are good, valuable, and very worthwhile defense contributors.

Over thirty thousand active US military in Germany alone. Over ten thousand in Britain. My guess- both those countries would wave goodbye as the last one left.

 

[gbg3]

Frankly, I'd love to see the U.S. be able to work individually with the individual countries within NATO rather that the group. Some of them are good, valuable, and very worthwhile defense contributors.

Right after posting this, I saw this AP piece in my newsfeed, and it ties in with this part of my comment and some of the points I've made on this thread. This is about Poland's upcoming election, this weekend.

"One of the new president’s most important tasks will be maintaining strong ties with the United States, widely seen as essential to the survival of a country in an increasingly volatile neighborhood."

MSN

 

[gbg3]

Over thirty thousand active US military in Germany alone. Over ten thousand in Britain. My guess- both those countries would wave goodbye as the last one left.

I think you might be entirely wrong!

 

[Grand Mal]

I think you might be entirely wrong!

Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Scandinavia, those are liable to have very different opinions regarding the presence of non-NATO US troops than the Slavic and Baltic countries.

 

[Peter]

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

It's also extremely useful as Scotland can get pretty darn cold so having troops who can operate in such conditions is vital for home defence.

It's also most likely pretty great for morale as Norway is a lovely country and I'd love to visit.

 

[anatta]

US can stay in NATO but not all the bases. Europe wants to step up. so have at it and good luck. we got your back

 

[reinaert]

I define it as a lack of capabilities.

Way too vague to work with.

And for sure, those capabilities are costly, but crucial.

I need, I think, to see figures to demonstrate slacking.

 

[SkyChief]

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

You're trying SO hard to be clever. It ain't working.

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

You asked a stupid, and juvenile taunt question. The reason you asked the question had nothing to do with the topic of discussion - it's purpose was to put me on the defensive. This juvenile mode of arugment seems to be popular on this forum. Others have tried to pull this crap with me when they cannot think of anything intelligent to say.

When people as these asinine questions, I point out how stupid they are (the questions - not the individual who asked them). And I did that with your dumb question.

My argument is this (POST #8)
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.

Line one is fact. line two is my opinion, based on line one. It is logical, concise and intelligent.

The US is a NATO member as of today.

Yes. NATO has abandoned its mission directives and lost its effectiveness, and that's why the OP is titled NATO is Now Dead. NATO needs to be reformed, and establish new mission goals, new directives, new obligatory standards (minimum requirements for member states) etc, etc,

When NATO is reformed, the U.S. will have the opportunity to NOT join, and hope we do not join. Europe no longer needs the U.S. support like they did in 1949.

The founding Fathers admonished Americans to steer clear of permanent entangling alliances with foreign countries. WW I and WW II were entangling, but they weren't permanent, so the two world wars didn't conflict with the Founding Fathers' directives.

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.

OK.

 

[DCCougar]

Read this scathing report about the NATO alliance.

Seems like someone came up with a conclusion and then went out and tried to support it with questionable evidence.

"NATO’s death was not caused by Donald Trump...."

Well, it's not actually dead yet, but Trump is trying his hardest to kill it... apparently for the benefit of his BFF Putin.

"...Putin’s invasion of Ukraine... has exposed the Alliance’s hollowness....

Does the author know that Ukraine is not part of the NATO Alliance? If it was, Russia would be rubble.

The real cause lies in.... the idea that an empire can masquerade as a collective defense pact without consequences."

??? Not. The real problem for NATO is the fact that the American electorate elected a convicted felon for president who appears intent on destroying two and a half centuries of democratic governance.

 

[OlNate]

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.

Re: the bolded... I actually agree with you on this one. I think the continuation of NATO, a coalition with the sole goal of being in oppostion to the USSR, should have been disbanded when the USSR ceased to exist. The fact that it didn't likely plays a part in why Russia remains a threat.

Certainly NATO's response to Ukraine does raise questions about it's current efficacy, given that it was originally created to prevent Russian expansionism. And, of course, no one has contributed to that failure than Donald "Let 'em have it all" Trump.

However, America makes too much money being the primary arms supplier to NATO, and without NATO it's kind of tough to justify all those bases in "ally" countries. It's pretty telling that while the pressure never lets up to spend more, you guys never really seal the deal, in terms of making good on Trrump's threats of taking his ball and going home.

Still, I can't help but wonder what the world would look like if America hadn't convinced everyone that they ought to prioritize spending money on ways to kill one another over making life better, always selling us on the notion that the next big threat is around the corner. While Trump might like to talk about taking his ball and going home, you guys make too much money and enjoy too much global control to really make good on that threat.

 

[NJBob]

My ex mother-in-law was old-country German and had 4 brothers in the German army. One had been stationed on an island in the Baltic near another island occupied by the Russians and they used to trade artillery fire now and then. They realized one day they hadn't heard from the Russkies for awhile so they sent a unit to see if they were still there. The Finns had come in the night and killed them all, many with knives in their bunks.

The Finns were a vicious bunch. This Soviet soldier lost not only his life but his boots too.

 

[SkyChief]

.Certainly NATO's response to Ukraine does raise questions about it's current efficacy, given that it was originally created to prevent Russian expansionism. And, of course, no one has contributed to that failure than Donald "Let 'em have it all" Trump.

Well, to be fair, Ukraine isn't even a member state, so NATO (and the U.S.) has zero obligation to be involved.

However, America makes too much money being the primary arms supplier to NATO, and without NATO it's kind of tough to justify all those bases in "ally" countries. It's pretty telling that while the pressure never lets up to spend more, you guys never really seal the deal, in terms of making good on Trrump's threats of taking his ball and going home.

Trump was successful in getting some European deadbeats to start paying their fair (GDP) share to NATO. Trump caused a lot of redness and discomfort with these delinquent member states, but they eventually complied.

Still, I can't help but wonder what the world would look like if America hadn't convinced everyone that they ought to prioritize spending money on ways to kill one another over making life better, always selling us on the notion that the next big threat is around the corner.

Yep - the world would probably look a different. We'd all be speaking Russian.

. . . While Trump might like to talk about taking his ball and going home, you guys make too much money and enjoy too much global control to really make good on that threat.

I understand your (collective) contempt for the U.S.. People in other countries covet what Americans have, and naturally that causes bitterness.

I think what you're saying is that Trump doesn't have the balls to pull the U.S. out of NATO. (correct me if I'm wrong).

 

[Grand Mal]

Well, to be fair, Ukraine isn't even a member state, so NATO (and the U.S.) has zero obligation to be involved.

It's always zero obligation. It's entirely up to each member state if and how they respond.

Trump was successful in getting some European deadbeats to start paying their fair (GDP) share to NATO.

This is bullshit. Nobody pays a share of their GDP to NATO.

Trump caused a lot of redness and discomfort with these delinquent member states, but they eventually complied.

More bullshit.

Yep - the world would probably look a different. We'd all be speaking Russian.

Russia can't do war.
Actually, recent history says America can't either.

I understand your (collective) contempt for the U.S.. People in other countries covet what Americans have, and naturally that causes bitterness.

More bullshit.
They teach you guys this kind of crap in your schools, don't they.
"They hate us for our freedoms!"

I think what you're saying is that Trump doesn't have the balls to pull the U.S. out of NATO. (correct me if I'm wrong).

Trump just might, because it doesn't take any balls to quit and go away.

 

[gbg3]

It's also extremely useful as Scotland can get pretty darn cold so having troops who can operate in such conditions is vital for home defence.

It's also most likely pretty great for morale as Norway is a lovely country and I'd love to visit.

It is absolutely lovely in Norway. I've had the pleasure of spending several weeks in Norway, all the way from Oslo to Tromso with many, many places in between. Those were some of the prettiest places I've ever seen.

 

[Tigerace117]

According to Khrushchev the Soviet Union lost a million men during the Winter War. Sure, the Soviets won, but Finland was never conquered.

Uh....what? I’m going to need to see some evidence for that assertion, because Soviet losses during the Winter War, which only lasted a few months in the first place, were nowhere near a million. The highest estimates for Soviet troop strength during the entire war are about 750,000.

Winter War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The USSR lost about 125,000 KIA and about 200,000 wounded, of which about a quarter were simply due to the elements rather than any of what Finland did.

The only way I could see anyone getting a “million” Soviet deaths is the Continuation War and Finnish role in the Siege of Leningrad were somehow counted as part of the Winter War for some reason.

 

[Tigerace117]

My ex mother-in-law was old-country German and had 4 brothers in the German army. One had been stationed on an island in the Baltic near another island occupied by the Russians and they used to trade artillery fire now and then. They realized one day they hadn't heard from the Russkies for awhile so they sent a unit to see if they were still there. The Finns had come in the night and killed them all, many with knives in their bunks.

And yet had the Soviets felt the need to take Helsinki by 1944, Finland couldn’t have stopped them....which is why they wound up having to ask the Soviets for mercy...again.

Tali-Ihantala was basically Finland’s last stand. They weren’t going to be able to hold against another sledgehammer strike

 

[Grand Mal]

And yet had the Soviets felt the need to take Helsinki by 1944, Finland couldn’t have stopped them....which is why they wound up having to ask the Soviets for mercy...again.

Tali-Ihantala was basically Finland’s last stand. They weren’t going to be able to hold against another sledgehammer strike

None of this is saying much since the Soviet Union defeated the mightiest military in the world and won WW2 in Europe and Finland's total population was probably less than Moscow or Stalingrad.

 

[Tigerace117]

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.

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.

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.


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

The existence of the “stay behind” NATO movements strongly argues otherwise, firstly. Turkey’s “deep state” basically was created by NATO in the first place, and the ties to both the Grey Wolves and other fascist paramilitaries across Europe are pretty much unequivocal.

Oh really? How secure do you think Denmark is feeling right about now?

NATO has never, ever been opposed to wars of territorial conquest or vasalizing other states, so the supposed opposition is rather laughably hypocritical at best.

If Russia was as incompetent as claimed Ukraine should be winning the war easily. They aren’t.

Instead, we’ve had supposedly impregnable Ukrainian fortresses fall one after the other, with “best in the world” equipment proving to be far less then advertised.

Because hysteria about Russia is essential in the propaganda narrative thr US is attempting to craft to justify taking over Canada.

 

[Tigerace117]

None of this is saying much since the Soviet Union defeated the mightiest military in the world and won WW2 in Europe and Finland's total population was probably less than Moscow or Stalingrad.

Yes, they did.

Which goes back to my point, which is that Finland only got a “mulligan” because they plead with Stalin for mercy.

 

[Tigerace117]

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is hypothetical?

Ukraine has annexed the rest of Europe when I wasn’t looking?