NATO China a Threat
Discussion
Halb said:
NATO pretty desperate to find a baddie?
You claiming China is not a threat, just take a look at the island there are building in the South China sea and the purpose it will be used for. They threaten passing planes and ships even though the island is in international waters.Russia too is still a threat claiming huge parts of the Artic as its territory
Baby Shark doo doo doo doo said:
We’re outsourcing most of Western industry to them too. Oddly, Trump seems to be one of the first to have highlighted it’s not a good idea 
US State Dept/Pentagon but yes, Don is the front man for that. US strategic thinking and direction had been realigning itself over the last few years - away from Russia and towards China. This isn’t a Trump thing, it isn’t some political grandstanding showbiz, it isn’t a Russian interference thing - it’s a US strategic direction thing. It’s bang on the right call in my humble aswell, the next 50 yrs will be a Western face off against The Dragon as opposed to The Bear. It will carry on long after Trump has buggered off.
Macski said:
You claiming China is not a threat, just take a look at the island there are building in the South China sea and the purpose it will be used for. They threaten passing planes and ships even though the island is in international waters.
Russia too is still a threat claiming huge parts of the Artic as its territory
I did not make that claim. I did make the claim NATO seems to wish to find a baddie, to still appear needed.Russia too is still a threat claiming huge parts of the Artic as its territory
What if Russia claims bits of the Arctic, are people from NATO countries gonna out their lives on the line for it? The way wars are being fought now have eclipsed NATO.
three excellent vids I posted in the ytube thread
China vs USA: Trade war
Binkov's Battlegrounds
https://youtu.be/aHSSDQYaIjQ
China vs USA: Geopolitics of the new Cold war
Binkov's Battlegrounds
https://youtu.be/pj87LmKGIvk
Australia's China Problem
Wendover Productions
https://youtu.be/5SDUm1bx7Zc
Zetec-S said:
Why do you think NATO is a threat?
Because it is made for a purpose which no longer exists and an age which has passed.It made absolute sense during the cold war to say an attack on one is an attack on all, and to box in Soviet expansionism by extending this as far as possible.
It is now totally inappropriate, because we don't have an expansionist Soviet Union. If Russia had retaliated when Turkey downed one of its fighters a couple of years ago we would have been obliged to side with Erdogan against the Russian operation to defeat ISIS. Whatever you think of Putin this would have been absolutely insane.
It also creates a moral hazard which could and probably did embolden Erdogan to needle Russia knowing that Putin would be less likely to retaliate.
In the absence of a hostile, expansionist adversary the decision to go to war should be done very carefully on the merits of each case not automatically.
In reality this probably would happen anyway before we got to the stage of all out war with Russia (or anyone else for that matter.) But the fact that this commitment exists creates a problem IMO.
The USA has seen them as a threat to freedom for years. They seem to have responded by showing they are.
Easy to deal with as we just stop buying their stuff and get it from the reasonable places like japan and south korea
thus boosting the economy of our friends.
They will end up selling things to weaker nations with a threat of military action if rebuffed like when britain forced them to buy opium.
History repeating itself?
Easy to deal with as we just stop buying their stuff and get it from the reasonable places like japan and south korea
thus boosting the economy of our friends.
They will end up selling things to weaker nations with a threat of military action if rebuffed like when britain forced them to buy opium.
History repeating itself?
JuanCarlosFandango said:
Because it is made for a purpose which no longer exists and an age which has passed.
It made absolute sense during the cold war to say an attack on one is an attack on all, and to box in Soviet expansionism by extending this as far as possible.
It is now totally inappropriate, because we don't have an expansionist Soviet Union. If Russia had retaliated when Turkey downed one of its fighters a couple of years ago we would have been obliged to side with Erdogan against the Russian operation to defeat ISIS. Whatever you think of Putin this would have been absolutely insane.
It also creates a moral hazard which could and probably did embolden Erdogan to needle Russia knowing that Putin would be less likely to retaliate.
In the absence of a hostile, expansionist adversary the decision to go to war should be done very carefully on the merits of each case not automatically.
In reality this probably would happen anyway before we got to the stage of all out war with Russia (or anyone else for that matter.) But the fact that this commitment exists creates a problem IMO.
Russian did not retaliate to Turkeys downing of the fighter exactly because Turkey is in Nato, a far stronger force then the Russian military. It made absolute sense during the cold war to say an attack on one is an attack on all, and to box in Soviet expansionism by extending this as far as possible.
It is now totally inappropriate, because we don't have an expansionist Soviet Union. If Russia had retaliated when Turkey downed one of its fighters a couple of years ago we would have been obliged to side with Erdogan against the Russian operation to defeat ISIS. Whatever you think of Putin this would have been absolutely insane.
It also creates a moral hazard which could and probably did embolden Erdogan to needle Russia knowing that Putin would be less likely to retaliate.
In the absence of a hostile, expansionist adversary the decision to go to war should be done very carefully on the merits of each case not automatically.
In reality this probably would happen anyway before we got to the stage of all out war with Russia (or anyone else for that matter.) But the fact that this commitment exists creates a problem IMO.
Also when Russia invaded Ukraine they did so by sending fighters and weapons not computer hackers. How confidant are you that if it was not for NATO Russia would be flexing its mussel far more then it is now, after all it is a country that seems willing to send assasins to poisen people.
Macski said:
..
Also when Russia invaded Ukraine they did so by sending fighters and weapons not computer hackers. How confidant are you that if it was not for NATO Russia would be flexing its mussel far more then it is now, after all it is a country that seems willing to send assasins to poisen people.
They'd be deterred by Farage mounting the fishing fleet and protecting our waters Also when Russia invaded Ukraine they did so by sending fighters and weapons not computer hackers. How confidant are you that if it was not for NATO Russia would be flexing its mussel far more then it is now, after all it is a country that seems willing to send assasins to poisen people.
Macski said:
Russian did not retaliate to Turkeys downing of the fighter exactly because Turkey is in Nato, a far stronger force then the Russian military.
Also when Russia invaded Ukraine they did so by sending fighters and weapons not computer hackers. How confidant are you that if it was not for NATO Russia would be flexing its mussel far more then it is now, after all it is a country that seems willing to send assasins to poisen people.
It seems to me that Erdoğan and Putin get on, and the incident was typical of their strong-man brinkmanship. I think it was a move in Erdoğan's power play and was smoothed over soon enough. Also when Russia invaded Ukraine they did so by sending fighters and weapons not computer hackers. How confidant are you that if it was not for NATO Russia would be flexing its mussel far more then it is now, after all it is a country that seems willing to send assasins to poisen people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Russian_Sukhoi_...
"On 9 August 2016, the countries′ leaders held a meeting in St Petersburg, Russia, which was described by a commentator as a ″clear-the-air summit″ — the first time the pair met since they fallout over the Russian fighter jet downing by the Turkish air force as well as Erdoğan’s first trip abroad since the failed coup attempt in Turkey.[26] The BBC commented that the summit, at which Erdoğan thanked Putin for his swift support during the coup attempt, ″unnerved the West″.[27] "
JuanCarlosFandango said:
Because it is made for a purpose which no longer exists and an age which has passed.
It made absolute sense during the cold war to say an attack on one is an attack on all, and to box in Soviet expansionism by extending this as far as possible.
It is now totally inappropriate, because we don't have an expansionist Soviet Union. If Russia had retaliated when Turkey downed one of its fighters a couple of years ago we would have been obliged to side with Erdogan against the Russian operation to defeat ISIS. Whatever you think of Putin this would have been absolutely insane.
It also creates a moral hazard which could and probably did embolden Erdogan to needle Russia knowing that Putin would be less likely to retaliate.
In the absence of a hostile, expansionist adversary the decision to go to war should be done very carefully on the merits of each case not automatically.
In reality this probably would happen anyway before we got to the stage of all out war with Russia (or anyone else for that matter.) But the fact that this commitment exists creates a problem IMO.
You say we don't have an expansionist Soviet Union, but we do have an emboldened Russia. Annexation of Crimea and the issues in Eastern Ukraine are driven by a desire for the country to reassert themselves on the international stage after 2 decades of perceived humiliation by the West.It made absolute sense during the cold war to say an attack on one is an attack on all, and to box in Soviet expansionism by extending this as far as possible.
It is now totally inappropriate, because we don't have an expansionist Soviet Union. If Russia had retaliated when Turkey downed one of its fighters a couple of years ago we would have been obliged to side with Erdogan against the Russian operation to defeat ISIS. Whatever you think of Putin this would have been absolutely insane.
It also creates a moral hazard which could and probably did embolden Erdogan to needle Russia knowing that Putin would be less likely to retaliate.
In the absence of a hostile, expansionist adversary the decision to go to war should be done very carefully on the merits of each case not automatically.
In reality this probably would happen anyway before we got to the stage of all out war with Russia (or anyone else for that matter.) But the fact that this commitment exists creates a problem IMO.
In Estonia, ethnic Russians make up 25% of the population, there is some concern about Russian influence, especially in the east of the country. If it was not a NATO member then would Estonia be seeing a similar situation to that in Eastern Ukraine?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff