-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Should the US try to expand NATO to Russia's border?
- Thread starter bamacre
- Start date
fleshconsumed
Diamond Member
Because in real world when your opponent is down you just kick him harder. Peace and cooperation is for weaklings.
edit for spelling
edit for spelling
K1052
Elite Member
It already is in some places or pretty close. EU and NATO membership is a major goal of many nations in that corner of the world. Given an option to historical Russian influence (which can be undeniably blunt and harsh) they would rather cozy up to the rest of Europe and the US to gain economic and social ground.
I see this as something positive for the west, more developed nations that share its general goals and how to get there is desirable. The world has changed on Russia from the eras of the Tsars and the Communists and there are new realities that have to be adjusted to. The nations they dominated are no longer under the heel so completely and that is obviously disconcerting the Russians but in the end there isn't a lot they can do outside of starting a war which they most certainly lose.
I see this as something positive for the west, more developed nations that share its general goals and how to get there is desirable. The world has changed on Russia from the eras of the Tsars and the Communists and there are new realities that have to be adjusted to. The nations they dominated are no longer under the heel so completely and that is obviously disconcerting the Russians but in the end there isn't a lot they can do outside of starting a war which they most certainly lose.
Lemon law
Lifer
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, the party that is now down is the USA. We are stuck in two quagmires,
running way in the red, Russia is now awash in oil money, and just got their way in Geogia. Rice, Cheney, and GWB are reduced to calling them mean as nasty names, but we all know who really won.
After taking the peace dividend at the end of the cold war, Russia has been able to restructure, and thanks to rising oil prices, they are now stepping back onto the world stage. I do not think Russia wants a resumption of the cold war and the military spending it entails, but I think placing missiles in Poland is very dangerous at this point. The end of cowboy diplomacy is now over even though GWB&co does not seem to realize it yet.
RightIsWrong
Diamond Member
Why are you limiting that mindset to Russia? That is every nation's and every human being's mindset.
You never want to negotiate from a position of weakness whether perceived or in reality.
Jaskalas
Lifer
I still wonder if they have, or if they are going to cross a red line.
I believe the most important question here would be ? how can we move from our current position towards some sort of friendly relations? I would want to walk that path, but I would also be prepared for the consequences if they don?t.
After our missile defense and laser technology matures, it won?t matter how many warheads Russia has. It?s simply a matter of time before the 20th century?s deterrent is no longer relevant.
I believe the most important question here would be ? how can we move from our current position towards some sort of friendly relations? I would want to walk that path, but I would also be prepared for the consequences if they don?t.
After our missile defense and laser technology matures, it won?t matter how many warheads Russia has. It?s simply a matter of time before the 20th century?s deterrent is no longer relevant.
K1052
Elite Member
Anymore it's considered, at a minimum, uncouth to "negotiate" deals with one hand on your gun as Russia is so fond of doing. It's always been much more stick than carrot.
Russia has no interest in ever treating their neighbor states as anything close to equals even though political realities have changed and a more moderate approach is dictated.
StageLeft
No Lifer
No, fvck Georgia. I don't care what McCain says I'm not Georgian. Russia may or may not have been over the top, but in the end Georgia attacked and killed a dozen of their UN-mandated peacekeepers and started shelling civilians who didn't want to be in the country anyway, so it's hardly as if Georgia is quite of the moral stock we want in new NATO members anyway. Too much baggage for now.
yllus
Elite Member & Lifer
From our perspective: Depends on how useful the land and resources that nation contains is.
From the joining nation's perspective: If they want to join, what business is it of Russia's what they do?
From Russia's perspective: Their own actions and motives are a great indicator as to why NATO is still needed today.
From the joining nation's perspective: If they want to join, what business is it of Russia's what they do?
From Russia's perspective: Their own actions and motives are a great indicator as to why NATO is still needed today.
fleshconsumed
Diamond Member
I think the following might be lost on your K1052, but I have to ask.
You imply that you can only negotiate with Russia from the position of strength because Russia only understands the position of strength. Russia then turns around and says well since the west is twisting our arms, the only thing we can do is fight back. Don't you find it eerily similar to Israel/Palestine conflict with their perpetual circle motion: we occupy your lands because you attack us, and we attack you because you occupy our lands?
When is this going to stop?
You imply that you can only negotiate with Russia from the position of strength because Russia only understands the position of strength. Russia then turns around and says well since the west is twisting our arms, the only thing we can do is fight back. Don't you find it eerily similar to Israel/Palestine conflict with their perpetual circle motion: we occupy your lands because you attack us, and we attack you because you occupy our lands?
When is this going to stop?
Fern
Elite Member
NATO is a defensive organization:
I don't see why countries should NOT be free to make pacts among themselves. The current NATO countries need to have (fair) standards in considering whether or not to accept a new member (that, however, is none of Russia's business either).
Putting arms in adjacent countries is another matter.
Fern
I don't see why countries should NOT be free to make pacts among themselves. The current NATO countries need to have (fair) standards in considering whether or not to accept a new member (that, however, is none of Russia's business either).
Putting arms in adjacent countries is another matter.
Fern
gevorg
Diamond Member
Even if Georgian/Ukrainian politicians receive funds/support/promises to join NATO, it will be their current governments decision, not of their people. The only purpose of bringing Russia/Georgia to NATO is to piss off Russia. Recently, it seems some powers in the West really need that for something.
Russia and Georgia are strongly connected culturally, at least a third of Georgians live in Russia and support their families in Georgia. Ukrainians and Russians are connected even stronger, since they're both slavic. Any NATO alliance won't last long, but being a neighbor to a superpower is forever.
Russia and Georgia are strongly connected culturally, at least a third of Georgians live in Russia and support their families in Georgia. Ukrainians and Russians are connected even stronger, since they're both slavic. Any NATO alliance won't last long, but being a neighbor to a superpower is forever.
K1052
Elite Member
Not really, the region will stabilize. The Russian issue with that is they they don't have the lion's share of the influence anymore and the nations around them are willing to turn to others that will actually give them a say in matters and those decisions won't always flow to Russian interests.
The collapse of the traditional Russian sphere of influence after the fall of the USSR was inevitable. The speed with which that has happen is a result of the means they used to acquire and hold it.
miketheidiot
Lifer
i think the georgia and ukraine issues shoudl make it very clear what its purpose is.
miketheidiot
Lifer
are you like the russian equivalent to the chinese apologists? Russia is not a superpower and never will be again, right now its a borderline failed state for gods sake.
miketheidiot
Lifer
how so?
No, but we will do such things - if not that, something else - because that's the nature of the power of nations, to push for more until 'there's only one'.
We wouldn't want the most powerful nation on earth, if not us, to be epxanding its allies closer and closer until they included Mexico and Canada - well over a century ago we stood not only against that, but for warning Europe away from the entire North and South American continents, claining them for ourselves (something nations like China and Russia and others would no like the right to do by simply saying it's their 'doctrine').
I've long said what the world needs is a political model for stable diverse power distribution.
Until we have that, we're going to piddle along with the powerful nations each overstepping for their own interests, one minute using peace arguments as a weapon against their enemy, the next trying to wiggle out of any peace treaties for their own wars, and it's a big mess that will lead to war, tyranny, or both.
Does anyone even have a clear answer for how to resolve secession issues peacefully? I haven't seen one.
Whether it's Chechnya wanting to leave Russia, part of Georgia wanting to leave them to return to Russia, the Kurds wanting to leave Iraq (which the US opposes because it might make the Turkish Kurds also want to leave which could upset the alliance with Turkey), or Alaska or the American South wanting to secede here, the rules seem made up for each conflict based more on who can win militarily (including terrorism) than any set of rules based on the rights of man.
In the meantime, we liberals will continue to push for peace in general, imperfectly but better, IMO, than the purely war-mongering interests.
That was just McCain trying to plagiarize JFK when JFK says we're all Berliners, during the crisis of the USSR trying to drive the west out of Berlin.
It was indicative of McCain's 'trashy' use of rhetoric to try for a cheap political score, rather than a more serious policy argument, IMO.
On the other hand, to be fair, it's hardly the first time a politician grasped for flowery words.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
