NATO and trump
Discussion
The EU army will have to come from countries that already struggle to meet NATO commitments. That on its own would be enough to make this seem a sensible position to take from Trump - NATO troop commitments effectively have two masters, but if the same troops are needed for an EU obligation it just can't work.
However, despite Obama spending his last few weeks trying to confront Russia - he spent the previous 8 years saying that climate change was the biggest threat to the United States - Obama could and might have spent time trying to get other nations to pull their weight in diplomatic language. I think Trumps more business like attitude might remind people that they can't demonise Russia when it suits and then simultaneously ignore NATO rules and investment.
However, despite Obama spending his last few weeks trying to confront Russia - he spent the previous 8 years saying that climate change was the biggest threat to the United States - Obama could and might have spent time trying to get other nations to pull their weight in diplomatic language. I think Trumps more business like attitude might remind people that they can't demonise Russia when it suits and then simultaneously ignore NATO rules and investment.
SKP555 said:
NATO has run it's course anyway.
Even if the fundamental idea of defence cooperation is still useful the idea of a pact with Turkey that *requires* us to come to their aid in the current circumstances is plainly ridiculous.
I disagree. Currently Turkey acts as a barrier, what country is next, Greece? Turkey has a huge army, with NATO backing it can resist anything, either from the North or East. Strategically its important. And so is NATO, as long as some other countries (I am looking at you in particular Germany) step up to the plate.Even if the fundamental idea of defence cooperation is still useful the idea of a pact with Turkey that *requires* us to come to their aid in the current circumstances is plainly ridiculous.
s2art said:
I disagree. Currently Turkey acts as a barrier, what country is next, Greece? Turkey has a huge army, with NATO backing it can resist anything, either from the North or East. Strategically its important. And so is NATO, as long as some other countries (I am looking at you in particular Germany) step up to the plate.
What about Turkey's threat from within? Including it's current President Erdogan. Are we bound to go to war with Russia if Russia responds to this?SKP555 said:
s2art said:
I disagree. Currently Turkey acts as a barrier, what country is next, Greece? Turkey has a huge army, with NATO backing it can resist anything, either from the North or East. Strategically its important. And so is NATO, as long as some other countries (I am looking at you in particular Germany) step up to the plate.
What about Turkey's threat from within? Including it's current President Erdogan. Are we bound to go to war with Russia if Russia responds to this?s2art said:
SKP555 said:
s2art said:
I disagree. Currently Turkey acts as a barrier, what country is next, Greece? Turkey has a huge army, with NATO backing it can resist anything, either from the North or East. Strategically its important. And so is NATO, as long as some other countries (I am looking at you in particular Germany) step up to the plate.
What about Turkey's threat from within? Including it's current President Erdogan. Are we bound to go to war with Russia if Russia responds to this?As things stand we are committed to backing Turkey against Russia pretty much regardless of anything else. A policy of pure insanity.
SKP555 said:
NATO has run it's course anyway.
Even if the fundamental idea of defence cooperation is still useful the idea of a pact with Turkey that *requires* us to come to their aid in the current circumstances is plainly ridiculous.
IMO....rubbish.Even if the fundamental idea of defence cooperation is still useful the idea of a pact with Turkey that *requires* us to come to their aid in the current circumstances is plainly ridiculous.
NATO remains a million more times relevant than the EU (for example).
Those who don't wish to pay for it don't have to I guess. But then don't come crying when it kicks off.
(Ironic that the EU grandes fromages have been talking about security being a big plus point of being in the EU, sharing the load and information etc).
SKP555 said:
NATO has run it's course anyway.
Yeah, now Russia has come on side and isn't flying it's long-range bombers off our shores anymore, or spending like crazy on it's military, invading ex-soviet states, acting the t
t in the Baltics, killing opposition politicians, conducting cyber attacks against the west, spreading anti-west sentiment through RT and Sputnik, making up fake evidence to cover it's supply of a BUK missile that downed an airliner, etc, etc, etcNothing to see.
Murph
More relevant than the EU isn't much of a benchmark.
Cobnapint
I tend to think NATO has made things worse with Russia, and through it's eastward expansion and by backing Turkey.
Supposing Russia had retaliated to that downed plane by say hitting a Turkish air base. Would we really have gone to war with Russia? Would that have been desirable?
NATO in its current form seems like a legacy of the cold war for which it was designed. Applying the same solution to a very different world seems dangerous to me.
More relevant than the EU isn't much of a benchmark.
Cobnapint
I tend to think NATO has made things worse with Russia, and through it's eastward expansion and by backing Turkey.
Supposing Russia had retaliated to that downed plane by say hitting a Turkish air base. Would we really have gone to war with Russia? Would that have been desirable?
NATO in its current form seems like a legacy of the cold war for which it was designed. Applying the same solution to a very different world seems dangerous to me.
s2art said:
I disagree. Currently Turkey acts as a barrier, what country is next, Greece? Turkey has a huge army, with NATO backing it can resist anything, either from the North or East. Strategically its important. And so is NATO, as long as some other countries (I am looking at you in particular Germany) step up to the plate.
turkish government is (currently at least) way more prorussian than prowesternmake of it what you wish
SKP555 said:
Supposing Russia had retaliated to that downed plane by say hitting a Turkish air base. Would we really have gone to war with Russia?
When you understand that the US neocon/neolib set assumes Europe will take the brunt of the destruction reigned down by the Russians in such a scenario, the answer to that question becomes rather obvious.scherzkeks said:
SKP555 said:
Supposing Russia had retaliated to that downed plane by say hitting a Turkish air base. Would we really have gone to war with Russia?
When you understand that the US neocon/neolib set assumes Europe will take the brunt of the destruction reigned down by the Russians in such a scenario, the answer to that question becomes rather obvious.The reality now is that most of Europe probably would have backed out anyway, rendering NATO useless.
It’s hard to envisage the Turkey scenario becoming an all out European war, but relatively easy to imagine it becoming a protracted series of operations where the US and it's allies who can be bothered are having stand offs and skirmishes with Russian forces in Syria, basically doing the work of ISIS and Erdogan.
It is total madness, which was avoided by Russian restraint.
SKP555 said:
scherzkeks said:
SKP555 said:
Supposing Russia had retaliated to that downed plane by say hitting a Turkish air base. Would we really have gone to war with Russia?
When you understand that the US neocon/neolib set assumes Europe will take the brunt of the destruction reigned down by the Russians in such a scenario, the answer to that question becomes rather obvious.The reality now is that most of Europe probably would have backed out anyway, rendering NATO useless.
It’s hard to envisage the Turkey scenario becoming an all out European war, but relatively easy to imagine it becoming a protracted series of operations where the US and it's allies who can be bothered are having stand offs and skirmishes with Russian forces in Syria, basically doing the work of ISIS and Erdogan.
It is total madness, which was avoided by Russian restraint.
s2art said:
SKP555 said:
scherzkeks said:
SKP555 said:
Supposing Russia had retaliated to that downed plane by say hitting a Turkish air base. Would we really have gone to war with Russia?
When you understand that the US neocon/neolib set assumes Europe will take the brunt of the destruction reigned down by the Russians in such a scenario, the answer to that question becomes rather obvious.The reality now is that most of Europe probably would have backed out anyway, rendering NATO useless.
It’s hard to envisage the Turkey scenario becoming an all out European war, but relatively easy to imagine it becoming a protracted series of operations where the US and it's allies who can be bothered are having stand offs and skirmishes with Russian forces in Syria, basically doing the work of ISIS and Erdogan.
It is total madness, which was avoided by Russian restraint.
I have to say the Germans and particularly Juncker have a bit of cheek
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/17/europea...
Germany's budget only in surplus because they only spend 1.2% on defence. Nice the US (and I suppose the U.K. To a much lesser extent) running large deficits will defend you...
And Juncker there's more important things to spend on, oh right says the tinpot Luxembourg bureaucrat.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/17/europea...
Germany's budget only in surplus because they only spend 1.2% on defence. Nice the US (and I suppose the U.K. To a much lesser extent) running large deficits will defend you...
And Juncker there's more important things to spend on, oh right says the tinpot Luxembourg bureaucrat.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff