6 ms·

It would have been much better to not extend Nato, but the new states form their own defence network and then cooperate with Nato with a bilateral agreement. B

It would have been much better to not extend Nato, but the new states form their own defence network and then cooperate with Nato with a bilateral agreement. But the UK and the US pushed and the states for obvious reasons feared Russia.

finchisko 9y ago
As history taught us. such a agreements doesn't work for small countries very well. Actually Czechoslovakia had such a agreement with France and in turn with England (France had agreement with England). But both countries left us behind and ignored agreement when Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia.
- _Codemonkeyism 9y ago
  And you assume these two countries would help the baltic States if a Russia fakes a Russian minority uprising?
  - finchisko 9y ago
    Unfortunately I can't say I'm highly convinced. But being part of NATO means chances are much higher then if they only had some bilateral agreements. Even considering NATO (let's be honest) is not in a great shape.
    - _Codemonkeyism 9y ago
      My point, was with a bilateral agreement perhaps the Russian public wouldn't be in the current imperialst craze and the danger of an "uprising" in the baltic states much smaller.
    - 3pt14159 9y ago
      Nato is the most powerful alliance in the world. Even without the US and Turkey, Russia wouldn't have a chance. France and Canada alone could probably stop a non-nuclear Russian offensive. Britain, Germany, Italy, all have military spending on peacetime levels of GDP. If the world heats up their economies could easily quadruple spending. The only country that could strain Nato is China, and we're doing fine with China.
czechdeveloper 9y ago
I, as ex-soviet sphere of influence country citizen, love NATO and consider it only way to fight Russian revisionist policies.
- tomash 9y ago
  This so much. Greetings from Poland. Russia's cries about promises and "zones of influence" are basically cries about being unable to send tanks on a whim to a country which doesn't want to be a Russian colony.
  - dreta 9y ago
    Instead we let the US do as they please on our soil, and politely ask for visas promised to us 4 cadencies ago. All it takes is a radically anti-interventionist US president and we’re left to fend for ourselves against the angry Russians with our outdated F-16s. Germany has better ties with Russia than us.
  - Giorgi 9y ago
    Exactly, Russia is shitty neighbor here in Georgia too, supported separatists to create military bases and buffer zones to themselves. I am glad there is no more shitty SU and hope one they we will be in NATO to protect ourselves from whoever nutjob person Russian people decide to "elect" next in their mafia ruled country. I am also happy NATO still expands.
- gadders 9y ago
  They shouldn't have persuaded Ukraine to give up its nukes. The Ukraine would still have the Crimea otherwise.
  - huffpopo 9y ago
    It should be mentioned that they gave up the nukes in exchange for perpetual guarantees of sovereignty and territorial integrity.
    - 9y ago
aluhut 9y ago
Luckily that did not happen. Can you imagine a "defense" network led by those junior dictators in Poland and Hungary? Edit: this topic lures interesting accounts out of their hiding.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- itsybitsyspider 9y ago
  > led by those junior dictators in Poland and Hungary You watch too much main stream media. Turn off your TV and start thinking instead ...
  - dang 9y ago
    Please only post civil and substantive comments to HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - itsybitsyspider 9y ago
      Does: > led by those junior dictators in Poland and Hungary sound civil and substantive?
- 8123213 9y ago
  Indeed it does. Accounts calling themselves "tinfoil-hat" and making pro-establishment propaganda are quite suspect.
gambiting 9y ago
As a Pole - that's the dumbest idea I've ever heard. Joining NATO was the best thing our country did, possibly even better than joining the EU. Being in NATO gives me peace that we won't be attacked/occupied/annexed by Russia again. We could have the greatest army in the world and without being in NATO, a covert landgrab like the one that happened in Ukraine wouldn't be stopped.
- _Codemonkeyism 9y ago
  First, let me say that I can totally understand your position and the Polish position in general. Russia is and has been (as Germany has been) an agressive imperialist country (I would wish Germany thanked Poland more for stopping the Russian march on Germany in 1921). I can also understand your point as a country that had defence agreements and ended up occupied after WW2 while your defenders claimed victory. But IMHO it accelerated (imperialist) Russia (again) on an agression path but more importantly weakend NATO, as NATO acceptance in core countries like France, the UK and Germany decreased. Acceptance of NATO in Germany is lower than ever, basically because NATO is seen as not committing to promises made and seen as an agressor in large parts of the population because of this (not my POV). "a covert landgrab like the one that happened in Ukraine wouldn't be stopped." NATO is so weakend right now and a shadow from the 1980s NATO that with a different government than the current conservative one, Germany will not commit to defend baltic states if Russia plays the Crimea Russian minority shenanigans. The current US government won't either. In no way will NATO countries use nuclear weapons to defend baltic states compared to using nuclear weapons in the 80s.
  - aluhut 9y ago
    Nuclear strike is a topic for itself since I think nobody will use it but: > Germany will not commit to defend baltic states if Russia plays the Crimea Russian minority shenanigans. ...is a weird statement. Where do you get this from? Besides the fact that "Germany" would never do anything by themselves, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't hesitate to join an European/NATO force to defend those countries. The "shock" here wouldn't be even half as hard as it was before Yugoslavia broke apart and Germany had to send soldiers into war again. Today there is not even a relevant party in the german parliament that could theoretically stop that involvement. I'm pretty sure some in Russia want to believe that Germany wouldn't join Europe/NATO since Russia is in fact the weak party here but I don't believe Putin is that naive.
JohnStrange 9y ago
If you look at the figures you'll find out that such a defense network could never have worked as a deterrent and wouldn't work today either. Russia had and still has a gigantic amount of conventional troops including heavy artillery and thousands of tanks, and can easily gain air superiority in any local conflict. That's why the US always insisted on a first nuclear strike option during Cold War, which almost lead to the total destruction of the world in 1983 when the Soviets misinterpreted a NATO maneuver as preparation for a first strike.
- _Codemonkeyism 9y ago
  Not sure how "NATO with a bilateral agreement" would not have worked, perhaps I'm missing your points.
  - tolien 9y ago
    What would that bilateral agreement look like without the organisation just being a wing of NATO though? The point I got from the GP is that Russia has a massive military force such that any large scale invasion would inevitably go nuclear because NATO is incapable of fielding the conventional force to counter it. If the Eastern/Central European countries formed their own organisation, unless they could invoke NATO Article 5, how are they supposed to counter the size of the Russian military any more than NATO can? A multilateral agreement which establishes relationships between the “Eastern Europe Treaty Organisation” and both sides seems like a better idea, but hindsight’s always 20/20 (and those states might not appreciate being treated as a buffer zone…).
    - rangibaby 9y ago
      By the early 80s it was clear that NATO outmatched the Warsaw Pact in conventional military strength. The Soviets developed the world’s mort capable anti-tank, anti-ship, and anti-air missiles.
      - jononor 9y ago
        Since then NATO countries in Europe has lowered their military capabilities quite a lot, haven't they?

finchisko 9y ago

As history taught us. such a agreements doesn't work for small countries very well. Actually Czechoslovakia had such a agreement with France and in turn with England (France had agreement with England). But both countries left us behind and ignored agreement when Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia.

_Codemonkeyism 9y ago
And you assume these two countries would help the baltic States if a Russia fakes a Russian minority uprising?
- finchisko 9y ago
  Unfortunately I can't say I'm highly convinced. But being part of NATO means chances are much higher then if they only had some bilateral agreements. Even considering NATO (let's be honest) is not in a great shape.
  - _Codemonkeyism 9y ago
    My point, was with a bilateral agreement perhaps the Russian public wouldn't be in the current imperialst craze and the danger of an "uprising" in the baltic states much smaller.
  - 3pt14159 9y ago
    Nato is the most powerful alliance in the world. Even without the US and Turkey, Russia wouldn't have a chance. France and Canada alone could probably stop a non-nuclear Russian offensive. Britain, Germany, Italy, all have military spending on peacetime levels of GDP. If the world heats up their economies could easily quadruple spending. The only country that could strain Nato is China, and we're doing fine with China.

czechdeveloper 9y ago

I, as ex-soviet sphere of influence country citizen, love NATO and consider it only way to fight Russian revisionist policies.

tomash 9y ago
This so much. Greetings from Poland. Russia's cries about promises and "zones of influence" are basically cries about being unable to send tanks on a whim to a country which doesn't want to be a Russian colony.
- dreta 9y ago
  Instead we let the US do as they please on our soil, and politely ask for visas promised to us 4 cadencies ago. All it takes is a radically anti-interventionist US president and we’re left to fend for ourselves against the angry Russians with our outdated F-16s. Germany has better ties with Russia than us.
- Giorgi 9y ago
  Exactly, Russia is shitty neighbor here in Georgia too, supported separatists to create military bases and buffer zones to themselves. I am glad there is no more shitty SU and hope one they we will be in NATO to protect ourselves from whoever nutjob person Russian people decide to "elect" next in their mafia ruled country. I am also happy NATO still expands.
gadders 9y ago
They shouldn't have persuaded Ukraine to give up its nukes. The Ukraine would still have the Crimea otherwise.
- huffpopo 9y ago
  It should be mentioned that they gave up the nukes in exchange for perpetual guarantees of sovereignty and territorial integrity.
  - 9y ago

aluhut 9y ago

Luckily that did not happen. Can you imagine a "defense" network led by those junior dictators in Poland and Hungary? Edit: this topic lures interesting accounts out of their hiding.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
itsybitsyspider 9y ago
> led by those junior dictators in Poland and Hungary You watch too much main stream media. Turn off your TV and start thinking instead ...
- dang 9y ago
  Please only post civil and substantive comments to HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - itsybitsyspider 9y ago
    Does: > led by those junior dictators in Poland and Hungary sound civil and substantive?
8123213 9y ago
Indeed it does. Accounts calling themselves "tinfoil-hat" and making pro-establishment propaganda are quite suspect.

gambiting 9y ago

As a Pole - that's the dumbest idea I've ever heard. Joining NATO was the best thing our country did, possibly even better than joining the EU. Being in NATO gives me peace that we won't be attacked/occupied/annexed by Russia again. We could have the greatest army in the world and without being in NATO, a covert landgrab like the one that happened in Ukraine wouldn't be stopped.

_Codemonkeyism 9y ago
First, let me say that I can totally understand your position and the Polish position in general. Russia is and has been (as Germany has been) an agressive imperialist country (I would wish Germany thanked Poland more for stopping the Russian march on Germany in 1921). I can also understand your point as a country that had defence agreements and ended up occupied after WW2 while your defenders claimed victory. But IMHO it accelerated (imperialist) Russia (again) on an agression path but more importantly weakend NATO, as NATO acceptance in core countries like France, the UK and Germany decreased. Acceptance of NATO in Germany is lower than ever, basically because NATO is seen as not committing to promises made and seen as an agressor in large parts of the population because of this (not my POV). "a covert landgrab like the one that happened in Ukraine wouldn't be stopped." NATO is so weakend right now and a shadow from the 1980s NATO that with a different government than the current conservative one, Germany will not commit to defend baltic states if Russia plays the Crimea Russian minority shenanigans. The current US government won't either. In no way will NATO countries use nuclear weapons to defend baltic states compared to using nuclear weapons in the 80s.
- aluhut 9y ago
  Nuclear strike is a topic for itself since I think nobody will use it but: > Germany will not commit to defend baltic states if Russia plays the Crimea Russian minority shenanigans. ...is a weird statement. Where do you get this from? Besides the fact that "Germany" would never do anything by themselves, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't hesitate to join an European/NATO force to defend those countries. The "shock" here wouldn't be even half as hard as it was before Yugoslavia broke apart and Germany had to send soldiers into war again. Today there is not even a relevant party in the german parliament that could theoretically stop that involvement. I'm pretty sure some in Russia want to believe that Germany wouldn't join Europe/NATO since Russia is in fact the weak party here but I don't believe Putin is that naive.

JohnStrange 9y ago

If you look at the figures you'll find out that such a defense network could never have worked as a deterrent and wouldn't work today either. Russia had and still has a gigantic amount of conventional troops including heavy artillery and thousands of tanks, and can easily gain air superiority in any local conflict. That's why the US always insisted on a first nuclear strike option during Cold War, which almost lead to the total destruction of the world in 1983 when the Soviets misinterpreted a NATO maneuver as preparation for a first strike.

_Codemonkeyism 9y ago
Not sure how "NATO with a bilateral agreement" would not have worked, perhaps I'm missing your points.
- tolien 9y ago
  What would that bilateral agreement look like without the organisation just being a wing of NATO though? The point I got from the GP is that Russia has a massive military force such that any large scale invasion would inevitably go nuclear because NATO is incapable of fielding the conventional force to counter it. If the Eastern/Central European countries formed their own organisation, unless they could invoke NATO Article 5, how are they supposed to counter the size of the Russian military any more than NATO can? A multilateral agreement which establishes relationships between the “Eastern Europe Treaty Organisation” and both sides seems like a better idea, but hindsight’s always 20/20 (and those states might not appreciate being treated as a buffer zone…).
  - rangibaby 9y ago
    By the early 80s it was clear that NATO outmatched the Warsaw Pact in conventional military strength. The Soviets developed the world’s mort capable anti-tank, anti-ship, and anti-air missiles.
    - jononor 9y ago
      Since then NATO countries in Europe has lowered their military capabilities quite a lot, haven't they?