|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On May 23 2018 02:34 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2018 02:24 TheDwf wrote:On May 23 2018 02:13 Plansix wrote:
Leaving a defensive alliance like NATO seems extremely silly for any EU nation. Unless they want to pick a fight with their neighbor. A "defensive" alliance which has consistently expanded towards the East, unlike the word given to Russians in the 1990's, and which is largely dominated by the n°1 imperialist nation in the world, currently ruled by a madman surrounded by a bunch of hardcore hawks. I really wonder why the pacifist left would want to leave that. Alliances don't expand. Sovereign nations join the alliance for their own assure their continued self determination. Now, if nation nations maybe want to rely on the US less because we are an unreliable actor, that is valid. It is a mess over here and we do not have your back. And if the pacifist left is meeting with Putin, someone should remind them that he invaded another sovereign nation very recently. And if they have objections to US imperialism, I think they might be bummed out when they hear about Russian imperialism.
![[image loading]](http://news.ihsmarkit.com/sites/ihs.newshq.businesswire.com/files/press_release/file/NATO_v_Russia_Defence_Budget_IHS_Janes.png)
![[image loading]](https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/01/4A8078449E794DFB8CC33ADD00A6F1AF.gif)
|
Does Nato expand East to annoy Russia does the East join Nato to protect themselves from Russia?
|
This is hugely misleading because it doesn't factor in purchasing power. The Russian budget gets them more stuff than the same nominal sum does in the US, which is why it is still the second most powerful army on the planet.
Also what Plansix says is true, given the superiority of NATO strength, it really isn't an exceptionally aggressive alliance. Most countries in the Eastern European sphere are running away from Russia because being a Russian satellite state really fucking sucks.
A good question is maybe to ask what would happen if the roles were reversed. Imagine Russia having the military strength of NATO. I'd like to see what they'd be up to.
|
One point to you, the question seems debated and versions differ about what Gorbatchev got.
|
On May 23 2018 02:41 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2018 02:34 Plansix wrote:On May 23 2018 02:24 TheDwf wrote:On May 23 2018 02:13 Plansix wrote:
Leaving a defensive alliance like NATO seems extremely silly for any EU nation. Unless they want to pick a fight with their neighbor. A "defensive" alliance which has consistently expanded towards the East, unlike the word given to Russians in the 1990's, and which is largely dominated by the n°1 imperialist nation in the world, currently ruled by a madman surrounded by a bunch of hardcore hawks. I really wonder why the pacifist left would want to leave that. Alliances don't expand. Sovereign nations join the alliance for their own assure their continued self determination. Now, if nation nations maybe want to rely on the US less because we are an unreliable actor, that is valid. It is a mess over here and we do not have your back. And if the pacifist left is meeting with Putin, someone should remind them that he invaded another sovereign nation very recently. And if they have objections to US imperialism, I think they might be bummed out when they hear about Russian imperialism.
Its nice when other nations pick up the tab for national defense. Think of all that money you don’t need to spend on your military. /s
Again, all critiques of the US are valid. But you also need to ask yourself what Putin would do with 700 billion? My bet is a whole bunch of really cool tanks and aircraft. Maybe a new blue water navy too.
|
On May 23 2018 03:08 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2018 02:41 TheDwf wrote:On May 23 2018 02:34 Plansix wrote:On May 23 2018 02:24 TheDwf wrote:On May 23 2018 02:13 Plansix wrote:
Leaving a defensive alliance like NATO seems extremely silly for any EU nation. Unless they want to pick a fight with their neighbor. A "defensive" alliance which has consistently expanded towards the East, unlike the word given to Russians in the 1990's, and which is largely dominated by the n°1 imperialist nation in the world, currently ruled by a madman surrounded by a bunch of hardcore hawks. I really wonder why the pacifist left would want to leave that. Alliances don't expand. Sovereign nations join the alliance for their own assure their continued self determination. Now, if nation nations maybe want to rely on the US less because we are an unreliable actor, that is valid. It is a mess over here and we do not have your back. And if the pacifist left is meeting with Putin, someone should remind them that he invaded another sovereign nation very recently. And if they have objections to US imperialism, I think they might be bummed out when they hear about Russian imperialism. Its nice when other nations pick up the tab for national defense. Think of all that money you don’t need to spend on your military. /s Again, all critiques of the US are valid. But you also need to ask yourself what Putin would do with 700 billion? My bet is a whole bunch of really cool tanks and aircraft. Maybe a new blue water navy too.
Bad things for sure. But it doesn't matter since he doesn't have them.
|
On May 23 2018 03:17 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2018 03:08 Plansix wrote:On May 23 2018 02:41 TheDwf wrote:On May 23 2018 02:34 Plansix wrote:On May 23 2018 02:24 TheDwf wrote:On May 23 2018 02:13 Plansix wrote:
Leaving a defensive alliance like NATO seems extremely silly for any EU nation. Unless they want to pick a fight with their neighbor. A "defensive" alliance which has consistently expanded towards the East, unlike the word given to Russians in the 1990's, and which is largely dominated by the n°1 imperialist nation in the world, currently ruled by a madman surrounded by a bunch of hardcore hawks. I really wonder why the pacifist left would want to leave that. Alliances don't expand. Sovereign nations join the alliance for their own assure their continued self determination. Now, if nation nations maybe want to rely on the US less because we are an unreliable actor, that is valid. It is a mess over here and we do not have your back. And if the pacifist left is meeting with Putin, someone should remind them that he invaded another sovereign nation very recently. And if they have objections to US imperialism, I think they might be bummed out when they hear about Russian imperialism. Its nice when other nations pick up the tab for national defense. Think of all that money you don’t need to spend on your military. /s Again, all critiques of the US are valid. But you also need to ask yourself what Putin would do with 700 billion? My bet is a whole bunch of really cool tanks and aircraft. Maybe a new blue water navy too. Bad things for sure. But it doesn't matter since he doesn't have them.
If France’s pacifist left wants to curtail the US’s imperialist tendencies, which is a more valuable, the Allied Nations in NATO or Putin’s Russia? And the people within pacifist left making overtures to Putin are doing it because they feel it is the best route promote peace? Or are they doing it to attack the parties in power in France in their own bid to obtain power?
Again, you don’t need to be buddies with the US. We kinda suck. It is the leap to being buddies with Putin’s Russia that people see as cutting off your nose to spite your face.
|
On May 23 2018 03:39 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2018 03:17 TheDwf wrote:On May 23 2018 03:08 Plansix wrote:On May 23 2018 02:41 TheDwf wrote:On May 23 2018 02:34 Plansix wrote:On May 23 2018 02:24 TheDwf wrote:On May 23 2018 02:13 Plansix wrote:
Leaving a defensive alliance like NATO seems extremely silly for any EU nation. Unless they want to pick a fight with their neighbor. A "defensive" alliance which has consistently expanded towards the East, unlike the word given to Russians in the 1990's, and which is largely dominated by the n°1 imperialist nation in the world, currently ruled by a madman surrounded by a bunch of hardcore hawks. I really wonder why the pacifist left would want to leave that. Alliances don't expand. Sovereign nations join the alliance for their own assure their continued self determination. Now, if nation nations maybe want to rely on the US less because we are an unreliable actor, that is valid. It is a mess over here and we do not have your back. And if the pacifist left is meeting with Putin, someone should remind them that he invaded another sovereign nation very recently. And if they have objections to US imperialism, I think they might be bummed out when they hear about Russian imperialism. Its nice when other nations pick up the tab for national defense. Think of all that money you don’t need to spend on your military. /s Again, all critiques of the US are valid. But you also need to ask yourself what Putin would do with 700 billion? My bet is a whole bunch of really cool tanks and aircraft. Maybe a new blue water navy too. Bad things for sure. But it doesn't matter since he doesn't have them. If France’s pacifist left wants to curtail the US’s imperialist tendencies, which is a more valuable, the Allied Nations in NATO or Putin’s Russia? And the people within pacifist left making overtures to Putin are doing it because they feel it is the best route promote peace? Or are they doing it to attack the parties in power in France in their own bid to obtain power? Again, you don’t need to be buddies with the US. We kinda suck. It is the leap to being buddies with Putin’s Russia that people see as cutting off your nose to spite your face.
No one in the French left supports Putin or wants an alliance with him.
|
On May 23 2018 03:44 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2018 03:39 Plansix wrote:On May 23 2018 03:17 TheDwf wrote:On May 23 2018 03:08 Plansix wrote:On May 23 2018 02:41 TheDwf wrote:On May 23 2018 02:34 Plansix wrote:On May 23 2018 02:24 TheDwf wrote:On May 23 2018 02:13 Plansix wrote:
Leaving a defensive alliance like NATO seems extremely silly for any EU nation. Unless they want to pick a fight with their neighbor. A "defensive" alliance which has consistently expanded towards the East, unlike the word given to Russians in the 1990's, and which is largely dominated by the n°1 imperialist nation in the world, currently ruled by a madman surrounded by a bunch of hardcore hawks. I really wonder why the pacifist left would want to leave that. Alliances don't expand. Sovereign nations join the alliance for their own assure their continued self determination. Now, if nation nations maybe want to rely on the US less because we are an unreliable actor, that is valid. It is a mess over here and we do not have your back. And if the pacifist left is meeting with Putin, someone should remind them that he invaded another sovereign nation very recently. And if they have objections to US imperialism, I think they might be bummed out when they hear about Russian imperialism. Its nice when other nations pick up the tab for national defense. Think of all that money you don’t need to spend on your military. /s Again, all critiques of the US are valid. But you also need to ask yourself what Putin would do with 700 billion? My bet is a whole bunch of really cool tanks and aircraft. Maybe a new blue water navy too. Bad things for sure. But it doesn't matter since he doesn't have them. If France’s pacifist left wants to curtail the US’s imperialist tendencies, which is a more valuable, the Allied Nations in NATO or Putin’s Russia? And the people within pacifist left making overtures to Putin are doing it because they feel it is the best route promote peace? Or are they doing it to attack the parties in power in France in their own bid to obtain power? Again, you don’t need to be buddies with the US. We kinda suck. It is the leap to being buddies with Putin’s Russia that people see as cutting off your nose to spite your face. No one in the French left supports Putin or wants an alliance with him.
But well known members have met with Putin and talking about leaving NATO? Am I incorrect on this?
|
Norway28820 Posts
When the European left talks about leaving NATO it is done with the intention of assuming a position of swedish-like neutrality, not about allying with Russia instead.
|
On May 23 2018 03:52 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2018 03:44 TheDwf wrote:On May 23 2018 03:39 Plansix wrote:On May 23 2018 03:17 TheDwf wrote:On May 23 2018 03:08 Plansix wrote:On May 23 2018 02:41 TheDwf wrote:On May 23 2018 02:34 Plansix wrote:On May 23 2018 02:24 TheDwf wrote:On May 23 2018 02:13 Plansix wrote:
Leaving a defensive alliance like NATO seems extremely silly for any EU nation. Unless they want to pick a fight with their neighbor. A "defensive" alliance which has consistently expanded towards the East, unlike the word given to Russians in the 1990's, and which is largely dominated by the n°1 imperialist nation in the world, currently ruled by a madman surrounded by a bunch of hardcore hawks. I really wonder why the pacifist left would want to leave that. Alliances don't expand. Sovereign nations join the alliance for their own assure their continued self determination. Now, if nation nations maybe want to rely on the US less because we are an unreliable actor, that is valid. It is a mess over here and we do not have your back. And if the pacifist left is meeting with Putin, someone should remind them that he invaded another sovereign nation very recently. And if they have objections to US imperialism, I think they might be bummed out when they hear about Russian imperialism. Its nice when other nations pick up the tab for national defense. Think of all that money you don’t need to spend on your military. /s Again, all critiques of the US are valid. But you also need to ask yourself what Putin would do with 700 billion? My bet is a whole bunch of really cool tanks and aircraft. Maybe a new blue water navy too. Bad things for sure. But it doesn't matter since he doesn't have them. If France’s pacifist left wants to curtail the US’s imperialist tendencies, which is a more valuable, the Allied Nations in NATO or Putin’s Russia? And the people within pacifist left making overtures to Putin are doing it because they feel it is the best route promote peace? Or are they doing it to attack the parties in power in France in their own bid to obtain power? Again, you don’t need to be buddies with the US. We kinda suck. It is the leap to being buddies with Putin’s Russia that people see as cutting off your nose to spite your face. No one in the French left supports Putin or wants an alliance with him. But well known members have met with Putin and talking about leaving NATO? Am I incorrect on this?
No for the first, yes for the second.
During the presidential campaign, the main candidate of the left (to put it simply, our equivalent to Bernie Sanders) was demonized because he said that "Russia has to be considered like a partner, not an enemy". He was called "Putin's candidate" and so on. The same trick was also used against the mainstream right-wing and the far-right candidate... i.e. all candidates who had a chance, except Macron. Then Macron, freshly elected, invited Putin to Versailles (a prestigious location) with all the monarchic ceremonial that France can produce, and the same pundits/observers had nothing to say.
It is beyond obvious that some "foreign policy issues" like Venezuela or Russia are exploited to smear opponents.
Leaving NATO is a fairly classic demand of the non-atlanticist left in France (i.e. pretty much everyone except social-democrats). As Liquid`Drone says, the goal is not to "switch sides" but to be independent.
|
On May 23 2018 03:58 Liquid`Drone wrote:
When the European left talks about leaving NATO it is done with the intention of assuming a position of swedish-like neutrality, not about allying with Russia instead.
Yes, but the specific instance we are discussing right now is a three day trip to Moscow in which the leader of that party announced their friendship to Russia and called for a withdrawal from NATO. Its is cool to drop out of NATO and be like Sweden. Just don’t announce the plan from the Kremlin.
Edit: Independence is a fine goal. But people are going to make some connections when someone announces friendship to Russia while also calling for the withdrawal of the alliance created to oppose Russia expansion. Observers might see that as switching allegiances.
|
On May 23 2018 02:49 TheDwf wrote:One point to you, the question seems debated and versions differ about what Gorbatchev got.
Not in it for points - just a proper discussion. Let’s call it even -props for acknowledging.
|
On May 23 2018 03:58 Liquid`Drone wrote:
When the European left talks about leaving NATO it is done with the intention of assuming a position of swedish-like neutrality, not about allying with Russia instead.
Neutrality is only an option if you are in a strategically useless position and have no resources worth the effort of conquering you. That is definitely not the case for France, so neutrality is not an option.
Being neutral is not an option if your belligerent neighbor wants your stuff, as the Dutch and Belgians found out rather quickly.
And is the "left in Europe" really willing to sit idly by as Russian troops march into Latvia?
|
On May 23 2018 04:11 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2018 03:58 Liquid`Drone wrote:
When the European left talks about leaving NATO it is done with the intention of assuming a position of swedish-like neutrality, not about allying with Russia instead. Yes, but the specific instance we are discussing right now is a three day trip to Moscow in which the leader of that party announced their friendship to Russia and called for a withdrawal from NATO. Its is cool to drop out of NATO and be like Sweden. Just don’t announce the plan from the Kremlin. Edit: Independence is a fine goal. But people are going to make some connections when someone announces friendship to Russia while also calling for the withdrawal of the alliance created to oppose Russia expansion. Observers might see that as switching allegiances.
Plansix lol, it's been years that he wants France to withdraw from NATO... He didn't suddenly find the light in Moscow. He also went there to meet an opponent who was imprisoned 4 years.
|
On May 23 2018 04:39 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2018 04:11 Plansix wrote:On May 23 2018 03:58 Liquid`Drone wrote:
When the European left talks about leaving NATO it is done with the intention of assuming a position of swedish-like neutrality, not about allying with Russia instead. Yes, but the specific instance we are discussing right now is a three day trip to Moscow in which the leader of that party announced their friendship to Russia and called for a withdrawal from NATO. Its is cool to drop out of NATO and be like Sweden. Just don’t announce the plan from the Kremlin. Edit: Independence is a fine goal. But people are going to make some connections when someone announces friendship to Russia while also calling for the withdrawal of the alliance created to oppose Russia expansion. Observers might see that as switching allegiances. Plansix lol, it's been years that he wants France to withdraw from NATO... He didn't suddenly find the light in Moscow. He also went there to meet an opponent who was imprisoned 4 years.
But Russia is really into US and EU elections recently, so you can understand why this is raising a few eyebrows?
|
Norway28820 Posts
On May 23 2018 04:37 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2018 03:58 Liquid`Drone wrote:
When the European left talks about leaving NATO it is done with the intention of assuming a position of swedish-like neutrality, not about allying with Russia instead. Neutrality is only an option if you are in a strategically useless position and have no resources worth the effort of conquering you. That is definitely not the case for France, so neutrality is not an option. Being neutral is not an option if your belligerent neighbor wants your stuff, as the Dutch and Belgians found out rather quickly. And is the "left in Europe" really willing to sit idly by as Russian troops march into Latvia?
Honestly I haven't perceived leaving NATO or not as a debate of any significance for like, 40 years. The party that I myself have voted for in every election however (the socialist left part of Norway) split from the labor party (which has been the main party of governance since ww2) largely because they did not want to be part of Nato. However, this has never been the reason why I have voted for them. I'm fine with NATO membership, at least as long as we're not forced into any more 'coalitions of the willing, the party has pretty much never had more than 10% support of the population, far from all those 10% have supported leaving nato, and pretty much nobody to the right of this party (so the other 90% of the voting population) has wanted to do so. But like, say (entirely hypothetically, of course) if I'm given the choice between Norway joining an invasion of Iran or Norway leaving NATO, then I am voting for Norway leaving NATO. Wouldn't even be close in my mind.
France has nukes. They can't be attacked. Them wanting to be an 'international force of power to be reckoned with' is a choice, not something given because of their history or geographic location. Germany isn't a relevant threat anymore either, so neutrality seems reasonable viable for Holland and Belgium too. As for the left being willing to sit idly by as Russian troops march into Latvia, the part of the European left that does not want to be part of Latvias defense largely believe Russia is not planning to / going to do that. I honestly don't have the knowledge to evaluate whether that's correct or not, but there are legitimate arguments for why Crimea was a more obvious target than any of the other ex-soviet territories.
|
On May 23 2018 05:35 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2018 04:37 Acrofales wrote:On May 23 2018 03:58 Liquid`Drone wrote:
When the European left talks about leaving NATO it is done with the intention of assuming a position of swedish-like neutrality, not about allying with Russia instead. Neutrality is only an option if you are in a strategically useless position and have no resources worth the effort of conquering you. That is definitely not the case for France, so neutrality is not an option. Being neutral is not an option if your belligerent neighbor wants your stuff, as the Dutch and Belgians found out rather quickly. And is the "left in Europe" really willing to sit idly by as Russian troops march into Latvia? Honestly I haven't perceived leaving NATO or not as a debate of any significance for like, 40 years. The party that I myself have voted for in every election however (the socialist left part of Norway) split from the labor party (which has been the main party of governance since ww2) largely because they did not want to be part of Nato. However, this has never been the reason why I have voted for them. I'm fine with NATO membership, at least as long as we're not forced into any more 'coalitions of the willing, the party has pretty much never had more than 10% support of the population, far from all those 10% have supported leaving nato, and pretty much nobody to the right of this party (so the other 90% of the voting population) has wanted to do so. But like, say (entirely hypothetically, of course) if I'm given the choice between Norway joining an invasion of Iran or Norway leaving NATO, then I am voting for Norway leaving NATO. Wouldn't even be close in my mind. France has nukes. They can't be attacked. Them wanting to be an 'international force of power to be reckoned with' is a choice, not something given because of their history or geographic location. Germany isn't a relevant threat anymore either, so neutrality seems reasonable viable for Holland and Belgium too. As for the left being willing to sit idly by as Russian troops march into Latvia, the part of the European left that does not want to be part of Latvias defense largely believe Russia is not planning to / going to do that. I honestly don't have the knowledge to evaluate whether that's correct or not, but there are legitimate arguments for why Crimea was a more obvious target than any of the other ex-soviet territories.
So they want to like Sweden and don't believe that there is any bad will with the big one in the East, while Sweden is distributing 'How to act in case of an invasion' leaflets for the first time in 30 years.
Also pretty much any reasoning from a Russian pov why Crimea was supposedly a legitimate 'coming home' could be applied to the Baltics without changing more than a handful of words. In fact thats way easier to justify than the 'totally not Russian supported freedom fighters' in Eastern Ukraine right now.
|
Norway28820 Posts
Sweden is much closer to Russia than France is.. France is not going to be invaded by any country even if they leave NATO, there really is no chance of that happening.. And like, I'm not familiar specifically with French nato opposition. But at least for the Norwegian (5-10% minority) of leftists who have wanted to leave NATO, it has always been coupled with wanting to increase focus on the UN. They'd still want to support Latvia in the event of a Russian invasion, but they'd want that to be based on global opposition to the invasion, not cold war dynamics. (Personally I think this point of view is somewhat naive because it doesn't factor in how toothless the UN is when dealing with issues where a permanent security council member is involved, but I think they might also want a restructuring of the UN? I dunno tbh. )
Some have wanted to form a larger European alliance, some have wanted to form a Scandinavian alliance. It's more about abandoning the US as an ally because the US is perceived as a global villain rather than force of good - and this point of view certainly has some validity to it - at the very least the US occasionally takes the role of a villain. This group has never been close to being influential, so the ideas aren't even fully fleshed out, as they're irrelevant.. I'm also not part of this group, so I don't want to make their argument for them. But I don't think the idea that France needs to be part of an alliance to defend itself against an invasion has any validity anymore. It did when they joined NATO. It has not been relevant for at least 25 years.
|
On May 23 2018 05:34 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2018 04:39 TheDwf wrote:On May 23 2018 04:11 Plansix wrote:On May 23 2018 03:58 Liquid`Drone wrote:
When the European left talks about leaving NATO it is done with the intention of assuming a position of swedish-like neutrality, not about allying with Russia instead. Yes, but the specific instance we are discussing right now is a three day trip to Moscow in which the leader of that party announced their friendship to Russia and called for a withdrawal from NATO. Its is cool to drop out of NATO and be like Sweden. Just don’t announce the plan from the Kremlin. Edit: Independence is a fine goal. But people are going to make some connections when someone announces friendship to Russia while also calling for the withdrawal of the alliance created to oppose Russia expansion. Observers might see that as switching allegiances. Plansix lol, it's been years that he wants France to withdraw from NATO... He didn't suddenly find the light in Moscow. He also went there to meet an opponent who was imprisoned 4 years. But Russia is really into US and EU elections recently, so you can understand why this is raising a few eyebrows?
The trip actually generated little comment in the French medias, the smear campaign about "Putin's man" is already a few years old.
From his own blog, what he wanted to do with the trip in Russia: (quotes in italic)
- His "political intention" was to "mark with a symbolic gesture the refusal of war and escalation with Russia".
- He was also there to celebrate the anniversary of the victory over nazis, a "way to remember the danger that far-right represents in Europe".
- "My message is that we can be friendly to Russia and the Russian people without being a partisan of the party in power"
On May 23 2018 06:18 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Sweden is much closer to Russia than France is.. France is not going to be invaded by any country even if they leave NATO, there really is no chance of that happening.. And like, I'm not familiar specifically with French nato opposition. But at least for the Norwegian (5-10% minority) of leftists who have wanted to leave NATO, it has always been coupled with wanting to increase focus on the UN.
Yup, same in France
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
