# NATO members wonder: Will defense promises hold?



## Mike Baker (19 Sep 2008)

LINK




> LONDON - In the aftermath of Russia's brief war with Georgia, the United States and its NATO partners face questions about the very foundation of their alliance — the pledge enshrined in the 59-year-old North Atlantic Treaty that an unprovoked attack on one member would be treated as an attack on all.
> 
> Georgia, while not yet a NATO member, is pushing for early entrance despite Russia's strong objections.
> 
> ...



More on link.
Deadpan


----------



## oligarch (21 Sep 2008)

Deadpan said:
			
		

> LINK
> 
> 
> More on link.
> Deadpan



In the absence of a Warsaw Pact, why do we need NATO?


----------



## Good2Golf (21 Sep 2008)

oligarch said:
			
		

> In the absence of a Warsaw Pact, why do we need NATO?



Because the UN has built a strong reputation for being ineffectual in dealing with security issues...  ???


----------



## Niteshade (21 Sep 2008)

Not to mention, strength in numbers.

Nites


----------



## George Wallace (22 Sep 2008)

oligarch said:
			
		

> In the absence of a Warsaw Pact, why do we need NATO?









I can't believe I just read that.  That should be posted in the "Stupidest thing I head today" thread.


----------



## TCBF (22 Sep 2008)

oligarch said:
			
		

> In the absence of a Warsaw Pact, why do we need NATO?



-We DON'T need NATO, per se..

- NATO was designed to stop The Commies from over-running WESTERN Europe.  Nobody said anything about defending former parts of USSR from Russia.  The 'NA' stands for 'North Atlantic' not 'Near Asia'.

- However:  We do need AN alliance, as pointed out above, as the UN is an anti-democratic collection of thugs and murderers.  Right now, NATO fits the bill. But, we have to know when to stop.  If Eastern Europe needs an organization to unite them, they should form one.


----------



## George Wallace (22 Sep 2008)

NATO is more than a Military Alliance.  It is also an Economic and Political alliance.  There is much more to NATO than the military aspects, but no one pays any attention to those facts.


----------



## armyvern (22 Sep 2008)

ABCA


----------



## George Wallace (22 Sep 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> ABCA



Totally different alliance, especially if we go back to ANZCANUKUS.


----------



## Fusaki (22 Sep 2008)

> ABCA



Thats what I'm say'n. They're the ones who's values are most similar to our own.


----------



## TCBF (22 Sep 2008)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> Thats what I'm say'n. They're the ones who's values are most similar to our own.



- Logical: The Anglosphere.  It is no accident that those countries who retained English Common Law are the most resilient democracies.  Everything from the Magna Carta, Glorious Revolution of 1688, English Bill of Rights of 1689...

.. to abandon the roots of common law is to abandon freedom.


----------



## George Wallace (22 Sep 2008)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> Thats what I'm say'n. They're the ones who's values are most similar to our own.



SO?  That is still nothing to do with the future of NATO.  It is just another alliance that we find ourselves in, due to our common language and values.  You make it sound as if we should only be in one alliance.  We have always been in a multitude of alliances, through our own efforts, through our participation with others in the UN, NATO and NORAD.  We are also in the Organization of American States with the USA, Mexico, and the countries of South America.  Once upon a time we were in an organization called SEATO.  We have numerous military alliances besides NATO, but that isn't the question, is it?  

NATO is an alliance that will continue well after the Warsaw Pact is gone, due to its non-military functions.


----------



## Fusaki (23 Sep 2008)

> NATO is an alliance that will continue well after the Warsaw Pact is gone, due to its non-military functions.



What non-military functions can be carried out better by NATO instead of a civilian treaty in it's place?


----------



## George Wallace (23 Sep 2008)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> What non-military functions can be carried out better by NATO instead of a civilian treaty in it's place?



You are not paying attention.  It has civilian treaties in place.  Perhaps you may want to look into what exactly NATO is.


What is NATO?


----------



## Fusaki (23 Sep 2008)

You're going to have to draw me a picture.

When I clicked on your link it made it pretty clear that NATO's primary role is "To safeguard the freedom and security of it's members by political and military means."

But in your opinion NATO still has a role outside of military functions. I still don't see what that function is.

You _could_ argue that it fulfills _political functions_, but that term is so broad that it doesn't really mean anything different then any other non-military treaty.


----------



## armyvern (23 Sep 2008)

It does have a civilian side to it, but I'm still all for going the way of ABCA. 

There's just something about NATO these days ... that obviously has a whole lot of people wondering about it's future.


----------



## Mike Baker (23 Sep 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> It does have a civilian side to it, but I'm still all for going the way of *ABCA.*
> 
> There's just something about NATO these days ... that obviously has a whole lot of people wondering about it's future.


Just so I understand clearly, this is America, Britain, Canada, Australia, correct?


*Deadpan wonders why he is still asleep*


----------



## George Wallace (23 Sep 2008)

Deadpan said:
			
		

> Just so I understand clearly, this is America, Britain, Canada, Australia, correct?
> 
> 
> *Deadpan wonders why he is still asleep*



Yes.  In some instances in the past it was ABCAN, but New Zealand is not in so many "joint" "activities" lately.

This, ABCA, is nothing to do with NORTH ATLANTIC, but is on a wider scale, being world wide.  NATO is more interested in its own 'portion' of the globe and affairs that will affect it.  ABCA would be covering a much broader sphere of influences.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Sep 2008)

oligarch said:
			
		

> In the absence of a Warsaw Pact, why do *we* need NATO?




An excellent question, oligarch, but one must say, in a rather Clinton_esque_ manner, it all depends on the meaning of "we."

Europe needed NATO, desperately, in 1948. Stalin’s Russians were baleful aggressors, a malignant force spreading across Europe, intent on plunder, pillage and slavery. But Europe was quite unable to defend itself against the USSR and, simultaneously, rebuild their economies and socio-political institutions – with *MASSIVE* US support.

Digression: there are, indeed, socio-economic and political aspects to NATO. They were inserted into the original treaty largely at Canada’s insistence (albeit with much Dutch and Scandinavian support) but the so-called _Canada clause_ (Article 2) was never, ever more than a _busy work_ project designed, by Dean Acheson, to keep Lester Pearson away from the main work of treaty crafting. The use of the clauses, through the decades, reflects their real purposes; they are, at best, window dressing and quite peripheral to the business at hand.

One can, and I would, argue that Russia still remains a malevolent force and, therefore, *Europe* still has a security problem. The difference is *Europe* itself. We no longer have a *North Atlantic* alliance; rather, we have a rebirth, with America as midwife, of _Mitteleuropa_ with an Atlantic appendix that, like its human counterpart, seems to be a part in search of a useful role. Russia doesn’t like _Mitteleuropa_ – and who can blame them? But how will Russia react? What can it do to stop a traditional threat to its vital interests? It is when we survey the whole range of Russian *options* that we can define a real threat to continental Europe. Thus, *THEY* need a military alliance but it is not clear to me that Canada, that “we,” needs to be part of it.

Our interests are best served by a peaceful, prosperous, free trading _Mitteleuropa_ and we have ⅔ of that now – Europe is peaceful and prosperous. Unfortunately the European Common Market, the core of the European Union, was designed as a *defensive, protectionist* trade agreement aiming to frustrate and prevent free trade.  It does so, as designed, today. Actively defending a ‘free’ trade area that is designed to exploit (rather than trade freely with) outsiders, like us, does not seem, to me, to be a high priority task for Canadian taxpayers.

Personally, I doubt that NATO is still useful as the UN’s primary military sub-contractor. NATO is so large and the treaty is so restrictive that the *coherent* military planning and execution – that is completely beyond the UN’s own capabilities – seems beyond NATO’s grasp. NATO is cumbersome in an age when we – the great big, global “we” represented by the UN, this time – need nimble, flexible organizations.

My, personal, choice is ABCA+. We do not, I believe, need another alliance: our experience with NATO ought to tell us that weeks of hard nosed negotiations in the infamous _smoke filled rooms_ only buys us strategic rigidity – just what we do not need. Rather we need a new, informal, G_n_ that deals with global strategic/security matters.

This loose, informal ‘organization’ needs head of government level support, affirmed by annual meetings, and it needs some common, agreed (ratified at head of national defence department level) standards for interoperability of systems, equipment and procedures that are ‘proved’ on a periodic basis. This organization could, I think, quickly plan and organize ‘_coalitions of the willing_' to address security crises on behalf of the UNSC.


----------



## Mike Baker (23 Sep 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Yes.  In some instances in the past it was ABCAN, but New Zealand is not in so many "joint" "activities" lately.
> 
> This, ABCA, is nothing to do with NORTH ATLANTIC, but is on a wider scale, being world wide.  NATO is more interested in its own 'portion' of the globe and affairs that will affect it.  ABCA would be covering a much broader sphere of influences.


Ah okay, I understand it now. Thanks George. But;

Do you think that this 'pact' would actually work out, since those nations are fairly like-minded, or do you think that it might just turn out to be another League of Nations?

-Deadpan


----------



## George Wallace (23 Sep 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> My, personal, choice is ABCA+. We do not, I believe, need another alliance: our experience with NATO ought to tell us that weeks of hard nosed negotiations in the infamous _smoke filled rooms_ only buys us strategic rigidity – just what we do not need. Rather we need a new, informal, G_n_ that deals with global strategic/security matters.



It may seem a simple solution today, but I can not see any alliance as being an "all singing, all dancing, be all, end all" solution.  Other alliances, major and minor, are necessary to keep "the balance".  One alliance would greatly restrict development at home and abroad.  

ABCA+ compliments, not replaces, what our (Canada's) goals should be on the world stage.  

Yes, we are in alliances that are ineffective, and perhaps greatly corrupted, such as the UN, but the potential is still there for greater things.  I suppose we can look at it the same way as the present Stock Market crisis.  Do you bail out now, or ride out the storm?


----------



## George Wallace (23 Sep 2008)

Deadpan said:
			
		

> Ah okay, I understand it now. Thanks George. But;
> 
> Do you think that this 'pact' would actually work out, since those nations are fairly like-minded, or do you think that it might just turn out to be another League of Nations?
> 
> -Deadpan



We have already created a bigger, better, more powerful League of Nations; the UN.  We can see the problems are still there.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Sep 2008)

I’m sorry, GW but I’m having trouble understanding these few sentences (clear enough though each word and phrase might be): 


•	_“It may seem a simple solution today, but I can not see any alliance as being an "all singing, all dancing, be all, end all" solution.”_

I specifically said *”We do not, I believe, need another alliance”* because our experience with NATO ought to tell us that formal alliances are ineffective.

As to “all singing, all dancing,” a few years ago ABCA (and AUSCANZUKUS and CCEB and a few others with the same membership) *were* doing two of the here things I suggested are necessary: 

1. Developing and ratifying (at CDS level) “some common standards for interoperability of systems, equipment and procedures.” In these, especially in the procedures domain, ABCA usually led NATO. I, personally, took my turn, along with my UK and US colleagues, telling large NATO meetings that we would soon bring a Draft QSTAG (Quadripartite Standardization Agreement) to Brussels so that members could use it as a base for a NATO STANAG (*Stan*dardization *Ag*reement). We would, usually, develop the two documents in parallel but the QSTAG was almost always, shorter, clearer and ratified (and, therefore, taken into service) earlier; and

2. We were, and evidently still are, running multinational exercises to ‘prove’ the standards.

Contingency planning was a much more complex matter – and I suspect still is. I’m pretty sure some went on – quite informally – but it was done in/by organizations beyond mine. But, whenever senior people like the DCDS and ADM(Mat) returned from five nation meetings we were, usually, inundated with new information and questions about specific operations - matters that led us to speculate that our masters might be considering a potential _combined_ (multinational) operation here or there.


•	_“Other alliances, major and minor, are necessary to keep "the balance". One alliance would greatly restrict development at home and abroad.”_

Which alliances? Why? What developments?

Is NORAD threatened by developing ABCA+? Would NORAD be threatened if Canada withdrew from NATO?


•	_”ABCA+ compliments, not replaces, what our (Canada's) goals should be on the world stage.”_

Of course, no outside agencies can ever replace *”our”* goals – nor can they be allowed to try, but: *So what?*


“_Yes, we are in alliances that are ineffective, and perhaps greatly corrupted, such as the UN, but the potential is still there for greater things.”_

Potential for the UN to do what? (beyond the useful things already done by member agencies like the IMO and ITU - some which are older than the UN itself (older even than the League of Nations) and operate completely independent of the UN.

Potential for NATO to do what? Do you really believe, based on our experience in Afghanistan, that a NATO mission in Darfur will succeed?


•	_”I suppose we can look at it the same way as the present Stock Market crisis. Do you bail out now, or ride out the storm?”_

One always sells ‘losers’ and tries to buy ‘winners’ – even during a “Stock Market crisis;” that’s why so much trading is gong on, people are selling what they think are ‘losers’ and others are buying the same stocks because they think they might be ‘winners.’

I’m suggesting that NATO has moved, over the years, to the ‘loser’ column and ABCA and the others are ‘winners.’

We do not “ride out the storm" by sitting on our hands and waiting for the worst; we trim sails and alter courses and so on - until he sailing analogy is completely overused.


----------



## George Wallace (23 Sep 2008)

I would not say that current formal alliances are ineffective as much as I would say the political will to abide by them is weak.  This is where the Americans have being getting so much grief on the world stage.  They have, more than any other nation, shown strong leadership.  You can not expect an alliance to rest on its printed form alone, the nation must show the intestinal fortitude to abide by the words of the alliance that it has agreed to.  Weak kneed politicians have caused our alliances to fail, not the 'alliances'.  If the will is not there, any alliance, past, present or future, will fail.  Seeking a better alliance is commendable, but we need the Political Will to make them relevant.  Has the West, other than the USA, had the strength in their leadership to do so?

Not to sound 'defeatist', but could the recreating of ourselves in new alliances not become more of an exercise in futility if we can't find strong leaders to enforce them? 

Canada, as well as the majority of other participating nations, must find some backbones in the Foreign Affairs Departments and Government.  Without the strong will of the Government, our enemies will simply thumb their noses in our faces.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Sep 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> ...
> Weak kneed politicians have caused our alliances to fail, not the 'alliances'.  If the will is not there, any alliance, past, present or future, will fail.  Seeking a better alliance is commendable, but we need the Political Will to make them relevant ...



Fair enough, GW, but:


			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ...
> Do you really believe, based on our experience in Afghanistan, that a NATO mission in Darfur will succeed?
> ...



If "Yes," why? What can you see in NATO's management of ISAF that fills you with such confidence?

If "No," then why is NATO so important *to Canada*? Do you really expect Canada to send forces to fight the Russians in South Ossetia or Ukraine?


----------



## George Wallace (23 Sep 2008)

I am looking at NATO as falling into the "weak Leadership" category.  With the Caveats that the various nations have placed on their troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, what difference would it make if we were to move on to Darfur?  If we want a strong alliance to work, we need the strong leaders.  Tony Blair is gone.  George Bush is on the way out.   We see the weakness in the leadership of our European Allies to commit.  Without the strong leadership we will only see the problem distroy the alliance.

Would I expect Canada to send troops to "fight the Russians in South Ossetia or Ukraine?"  Yes.  If it were necessary.  NATO should follow its mandates.  If it is going to be "All for one, One for all", then it should have the strength in leadership to do so.  We are seeing less of that as every day passes.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Sep 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> ...  NATO should follow its mandates.  If it is going to be "All for one, One for all", then it should have the strength in leadership to do so ...




But NATO's "All for one, One for all" _attribute_ is very restricted, George. Article 5 says:

“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them ... shall be considered an attack against them all and ... if such an armed attack occurs, each of them ... will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking ... *such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force*, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.”

The phrase “including the use of armed force” means that any of Parties (nations) may decide, for itself, for its own good reasons, that armed force is not necessary.

I’m sorry, George, but NATO is weak – by design, not just due to leadership. Increasing its membership makes it weaker because any agreement, on anything is more and more difficult to obtain and standardization of material and procedures slows to a crawl as more and more interests must be addressed.

NATO is not, I suggest, very important for Canada. Some time ago The Ruxted Group suggested that NATO has gone, for Canada’s foreign and defence policies, from *“Cornerstone to Stumbling Block”*. Europe’s views and interests and Canada’s views and interests do not coincide in 2008 nearly as much as they did in 1948 or even 1968. Europe’s voice in NATO grows stronger and stronger – not to Canada’s strategic advantage.

The end result is that we are a small, _weak_ member of a weak alliance; is that good policy? No.


----------



## time expired (23 Sep 2008)

I am afraid that all of these "One World" Internationalist dreams are just
that,dreams.Consider the Anglosphere touted here so often,how would it 
have survived Suez,Vietnam,Iraq?,just to mention a few.No my friends the
best we can hope for is more "Alliances of the Willing".The hopes that we
have for the great international organizations are misplaced,the UN and
now NATO have turned into "talking shops" providing employment for huge
numbers of bureaucrats,mostly failed politicos from their native countries,
where any important decisions are avoided or if taken, are so watered down
by national interest groups, as to be worthless. So what can be done?we
will probably have to continue hoping our national government will be 
able to steer us through the shoals of international crisis,entering in short
time alliances as our national interests mesh with others.True World peace
will IMHO only be achieved when a country emerges with so much military
and economic power to completely dominate the rest of the world.China
appears to be the most likely candidate at this period of history and if they
can achieve this position of power the peace will probably resemble the
peace of a well run prison.So let us enjoy the chaos of the 21cent. and 
continue trying to solve the problems of the World on this excellent
website.
                             Regards


----------



## GAP (23 Sep 2008)

Rather than formal Alliances like NATO, ABCA, etc, why not as time expired mentioned....Alliance of the Willing on separate issues....

similar to Coalitions utilized in Iraq, interoperatatively standards need to be set, the rest is up to the individual countries....


----------



## George Wallace (23 Sep 2008)

time expired said:
			
		

> .........So let us enjoy the chaos of the 21cent. and
> continue trying to solve the problems of the World on this excellent
> website.



We try our best, but even any "Alliance of the Willing" will have a best before date stamp on it.  The "Willing" loose their willingness very quickly these days.





Not to cynical, am I?


----------



## oligarch (23 Sep 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> An excellent question, oligarch, but one must say, in a rather Clinton_esque_ manner, it all depends on the meaning of "we."



Wow… thank you for your detailed and mature response. I’m glad someone on this board understands the concept of a rhetorical question.



> Europe needed NATO, desperately, in 1948. Stalin’s Russians were baleful aggressors, a malignant force spreading across Europe, intent on plunder, pillage and slavery. But Europe was quite unable to defend itself against the USSR and, simultaneously, rebuild their economies and socio-political institutions – with *MASSIVE* US support.



I certainly agree that it seemed that way from this side of the Berlin Wall, but do you honestly think that the regular people intended these things? My contention is that, given the chaotic state of capitalism in the late 1890s and early 1900s in Europe, the success of the de-facto militarized state-socialist but not yet truly communist Soviet Union really gave the people on the east side of the wall roughly the same point of view of the west that those on the west side had of the east. I can hardly believe that any people as a combined unit want to ‘rape and pillage’, and such statements stem from lack of understanding. Saying that ‘we are civilized, and they are barbarians’ is simply not the correct way of looking at the world. Everyone believes that their point of view is right and moral.

But I digress, the question I wanted to ask is, now that that ideological divide, and thus, the inherent disagreement is gone, do you think NATO has lost its mission? The Soviet Union, along with the Warsaw pact, is gone! Do you think that NATO, had it not found an enemy in Russia, would have created an enemy out of Russia in order to stay together? 



> Digression: there are, indeed, socio-economic and political aspects to NATO. They were inserted into the original treaty largely at Canada’s insistence (albeit with much Dutch and Scandinavian support) but the so-called _Canada clause_ (Article 2) was never, ever more than a _busy work_ project designed, by Dean Acheson, to keep Lester Pearson away from the main work of treaty crafting. The use of the clauses, through the decades, reflects their real purposes; they are, at best, window dressing and quite peripheral to the business at hand.



Agree. NATO is a millitary block and trying to assign it a non-millitary label is just an example of looking at the world through beer googles.



> One can, and I would, argue that Russia still remains a malevolent force and, therefore, *Europe* still has a security problem. The difference is *Europe* itself. We no longer have a *North Atlantic* alliance; rather, we have a rebirth, with America as midwife, of _Mitteleuropa_ with an Atlantic appendix that, like its human counterpart, seems to be a part in search of a useful role. Russia doesn’t like _Mitteleuropa_ – and who can blame them? But how will Russia react? What can it do to stop a traditional threat to its vital interests? It is when we survey the whole range of Russian *options* that we can define a real threat to continental Europe. Thus, *THEY* need a military alliance but it is not clear to me that Canada, that “we,” needs to be part of it.
> 
> Our interests are best served by a peaceful, prosperous, free trading _Mitteleuropa_



Is it not in the best interest of Russia to supply oil and gas to stable, peaceful, prosperous democracies who can actually pay the bill? Is this MUTUAL energy dependence (Europe needs gas, Russia needs the financial capital it secures in exchange) much more effictive in preserving the peace much more useful than provokative millitary blocks? Yes, one can indeed argue that Russia is a malevolent force. But one can also argue that NATO has been a malevolent force. Today we are finding out more interesting stories out of Yugoslavia. For one, I find the assertion that Russian force in Georgia was ‘excessive’ comical, given the tactics these critics employed in Yugoslavia, which were far from ‘tactical’. However, I again ask the question: is Russia, viewed as enemy, much more useful to NATO and the EU than when it is viewed as a friend? Without Russia in the form of an enemy, NATO would have no reason to stay together, the EU would not be able to agree on anything when it comes to energy policy, and military contractors would not be able to secure lucrative contracts to build missile interceptors in Poland and the Czech Republic.



> Personally, I doubt that NATO is still useful as the UN’s primary military sub-contractor.


I respectfully disagree with this assertion... the UN and NATO can't agree on anything! Look at Yugoslavia, Kosovo.



> This loose, informal ‘organization’ needs head of government level support, affirmed by annual meetings, and it needs some common, agreed (ratified at head of national defence department level) standards for interoperability of systems, equipment and procedures that are ‘proved’ on a periodic basis. This organization could, I think, quickly plan and organize ‘_coalitions of the willing_' to address security crises on behalf of the UNSC.


What are your thoughts on replacing NATO as a millitary block, which is - I would argue - an outdated relic of the cold war, with a UNSC force, given that some reforms of the UNSC take place to include some of the non-UNSC G8 members such as Germany and Canada?


----------



## tomahawk6 (23 Sep 2008)

The world would be a much safer place with a UN Security Force. :


----------



## TCBF (24 Sep 2008)

oligarch said:
			
		

> Wow… thank you for your detailed and mature response. I’m glad someone on this board understands the concept of a rhetorical question. ...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Win_Friends_and_Influence_People


----------



## armyvern (24 Sep 2008)

oligarch said:
			
		

> The Soviet Union, along with the Warsaw pact, is gone! Do you think that NATO, had it not found an enemy in Russia, would have created an enemy out of Russia in order to stay together?



Well, there are certainly some conspiracy theorists whom adore the mentioned _Motherland_ who'd like to think so.


----------



## oligarch (25 Sep 2008)

TCBF said:
			
		

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Win_Friends_and_Influence_People



point taken


----------



## oligarch (25 Sep 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Well, there are certainly some conspiracy theorists whom adore the mentioned _Motherland_ who'd like to think so.



I don't think there is anything terribly 'conspiracy-like' about this question. If you look at what actually happened, Russia in the quality of an enemy is begining to provide NATO with a purpose, a terribly old-fashioned one, but a purpose nonetheless.


----------



## armyvern (25 Sep 2008)

oligarch said:
			
		

> I don't think there is anything terribly 'conspiracy-like' about this question. If you look at what actually happened, Russia in the quality of an enemy is begining to provide NATO with a purpose, a terribly old-fashioned one, but a purpose nonetheless.



Well you know, you may not, but conspiracy theorists still head over heals in love with the _Motherland_ would beg to differ with you.


----------



## aesop081 (28 Sep 2008)

oligarch said:
			
		

> Russia in the quality of an enemy is begining to provide NATO with a purpose, a terribly old-fashioned one, but a purpose nonetheless.



It may be old fashion but still incredibly valid.


----------



## oligarch (30 Sep 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> It may be old fashion but still incredibly valid.



That wasn't really the essence of my point. However, how so is it incredibly valid? My contention is that NATO is manufacturing an outside enemy as a means of consolidation.


----------



## aesop081 (30 Sep 2008)

oligarch said:
			
		

> My contention is that NATO is manufacturing an outside enemy as a means of consolidation.



Well........those must have been imaginary TU-95s who came to say hello to NATO / NORAD defences in several locations then.......for example.


----------



## oligarch (30 Sep 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Well........those must have been imaginary TU-95s who came to say hello to NATO / NORAD defences in several locations then.......for example.



TU-95 are conducting patrols and not infringing on anyone's airspace, which is in compliance with international law and very simmilar to NATO's own way of doing things. Or does NATO claim a sence of exclusivity in international waters? Look at Russia's Naval mission to Venezuela, which has seen many of their NATO friends to their starboard side.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (30 Sep 2008)

What do you consider yourself oligarch, a patriotic Russian or a patriotic Canadian? Whose side would you chose if Russia and Canada found themselves at war?


----------



## TacticalW (30 Sep 2008)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> What do you consider yourself oligarch, a patriotic Russian or a patriotic Canadian? Whose side would you chose if Russia and Canada found themselves at war?



That's something I've been meaning to ask, but decided to refrain. Perhaps not so eloquently however.


----------



## George Wallace (30 Sep 2008)

After reading another post where he states his current status, I would say that should it come to that, he would be interred in a PW Camp on commencement of hostilities.


----------



## TCBF (30 Sep 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> After reading another post where he states his current status, I would say that should it come to that, he would be interred in a PW Camp on commencement of hostilities.



- We don't do internment camps anymore for those holding enemy citizenship.  Gummint ends up apologizing sixty years later...


----------



## George Wallace (1 Oct 2008)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - We don't do internment camps anymore for those holding enemy citizenship.  Gummint ends up apologizing sixty years later...



And commemorating them with large Bronze Plaques.


----------



## oligarch (1 Oct 2008)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> What do you consider yourself oligarch, a patriotic Russian or a patriotic Canadian? Whose side would you chose if Russia and Canada found themselves at war?



Do you equate patriotism with unquestionable, unwavering support for the country's media? I can see who is right and who is wrong on this issue, no need to get personal. Believe me, when I started looking into politics I was vehemently anti-Russian, untill I actually aquired some knowledge.


----------



## TacticalW (1 Oct 2008)

oligarch said:
			
		

> Do you equate patriotism with unquestionable, unwavering support for the country's media? I can see who is right and who is wrong on this issue, no need to get personal. Believe me, when I started looking into politics I was vehemently anti-Russian, until I actually acquired some knowledge.



And I was very pro-Russian after being technically born there and having lived in Belarus in my early years, I loved my family and parts of the culture but then with more knowledge I've come to hate what it stands for. My entire family was in the military there of course, we've had some relatively reputable people in my family and there were some others with more of a shadowy history (you can probably guess what that consisted of back in the USSR), seeing the corruption first hand from the likes of Lukoshenko and seeing exactly how "exclusive" the political realm was in Russia as well as Belarus I've come to realize just how how messed up it is. I've had my relatives, parents and grandparents talk about it and boy was it a rude and shocking awakening for many once the facts were fully in the open after the parastroika. There were always a lot of family rumors about how certain relatives suddenly died back in the 70s and 80s. 

I'm sure you'll like it in Belarus should you go there, no Anastasia for anything at and below minor surgeries, lack of healthcare in general, not being able to afford to eat "meat" in many cases, still a minor dose of radiation from Chernobyl especially in specific areas (making much of the farming land useless without expensive equipment...), absolute poverty and I hope you enjoy spending the rest of your working age saving up for a cheap car and if you're incredibly lucky a one room apartment and enough money to replace the tires down the road. Much of that didn't have to be like that, but because of the dictatorship there and the idiotic leader things are very bad and have been for a long time. I'm not going to bother telling you just how hard it was to get out of there and how slim the chances were in so many areas. I remember waiting 20 hours in a line up just to buy new furniture and taking turns with family members to stand there through night, morning and day. The market isn't as desperate as it was back then, but it's still very bad. My only hope is that it gets stronger ties with the West and gets rid of that dictator, it pisses me off that so many of my family have to go through that BS. 

You're bloody well blind and all you seem to aspire to be is a wannabe-Communist (or if you want it put nicely "socialist") not listening much of other peoples views. I'm sorry but reading over your arrogant posts really pushed me to say this, it's been ticking me off for a while seeing how clueless you are on just how corrupt and despicable the leadership there is, only serving itself and giving the citizens nothing. 

No country is perfect, but if you want to play a game of who's been more humane in every respect you'll find that the USSR came up "very" short. There was only one voice in the USSR and that was the one of the KGB, you do not get "anywhere" on the political stage unless you are involved and not that much has changed in that respect. Wake up. God forbid anything like the USSR gets created again, but it certainly looks like that's what Putin wants.


----------



## armyvern (1 Oct 2008)

oligarch said:
			
		

> Believe me, when I started looking into politics I was vehemently anti-Russian, untill I actually aquired some knowledge.



As a great many have discovered ... it is the "sources" utilized in obtaining that knowledge that determine how "factual" or "accurate" one's _supposed_ knowledge really is.

When one tends to quote Wikipedia as a primary source of one's learned (using 'learned' loosely of course) knowledge - it tends to leave something to be desired.


----------

