3 ms·

Here is the way to think about it: The rigidity of two powerful sides not letting the other advance held together certain countries like Yugoslavia and created

Here is the way to think about it: The rigidity of two powerful sides not letting the other advance held together certain countries like Yugoslavia and created a rigid framework for countries like Sweden. Now the Baltic states are not in the rigid framework of the USSR, and potentially threatened by Russia. Sweden may not care to intervene, but the way for Russia to secure the Baltic States from NATO is to seize Gotland. That is something Russia has the capability to do, and Sweden is not very well prepared to defend against. NATO membership would relieve a lot of that risk. NATO is actually a positive organization in terms of promoting the peace. It is and probably always will be totally ineffective as an offensive alliance. But it is unbeatable as a defensive alliance. So everybody wants to be a member to save on defense spending. I don't think that is awful.

baybal2 6y ago
Rethink your thinking. NATO was preparing for Russian attack through North-Eastern Europe effectively since its creation, and been keeping new Baltic members under spotlight for the last 20 years. At least, these countries will fight — something that is not so certain about countries down south. Where NATO needs to look now is its soft Southern underbelly. You now have a lot of weak, assorted statelets, ripe for the taking there. None of them will stand even a single tank division.
- nradov 6y ago
  Which NATO members are you referring to? Russia doesn't currently have the expeditionary capability to put even a single tank division into Bulgaria or Romania. Other southern member states like Turkey, Greece, and the various Balkan countries would be even harder to invade.
  - baybal2 6y ago
    > Russia doesn't currently have the expeditionary capability to put even a single tank division into Bulgaria or Romania. They don't need to if any of many loose states there let themselves to be turned into Russian staging ground. Not a stretch given how fantastically corrupt governments there are, with Moldovia, and its breakaway regions in particular. There was even a precedent: Montenegro once almost let Russian to buy a military base there + humongous lots of lands adjacent to it, allegedly, in exchange for a laughable amount of money going to families of previous cabinet members.
runarberg 6y ago
> It is and probably always will be totally ineffective as an offensive alliance. History has shown otherwise. Every single of NATO’s mission has been on the offensive. Be it enforcing a no-fly zone in Libya (which requires suspiciously many areal bombing), naval missions to protect selected cargo vessels from pirates in the Gulf of Aden or intimidating training missions in Iraq. Even Afghanistan was an offensive mission (with a defensive excuse). NATO’s offensive operations outnumber defensive missions 6 to 0.

baybal2 6y ago

Rethink your thinking. NATO was preparing for Russian attack through North-Eastern Europe effectively since its creation, and been keeping new Baltic members under spotlight for the last 20 years. At least, these countries will fight — something that is not so certain about countries down south. Where NATO needs to look now is its soft Southern underbelly. You now have a lot of weak, assorted statelets, ripe for the taking there. None of them will stand even a single tank division.

nradov 6y ago
Which NATO members are you referring to? Russia doesn't currently have the expeditionary capability to put even a single tank division into Bulgaria or Romania. Other southern member states like Turkey, Greece, and the various Balkan countries would be even harder to invade.
- baybal2 6y ago
  > Russia doesn't currently have the expeditionary capability to put even a single tank division into Bulgaria or Romania. They don't need to if any of many loose states there let themselves to be turned into Russian staging ground. Not a stretch given how fantastically corrupt governments there are, with Moldovia, and its breakaway regions in particular. There was even a precedent: Montenegro once almost let Russian to buy a military base there + humongous lots of lands adjacent to it, allegedly, in exchange for a laughable amount of money going to families of previous cabinet members.

runarberg 6y ago

> It is and probably always will be totally ineffective as an offensive alliance. History has shown otherwise. Every single of NATO’s mission has been on the offensive. Be it enforcing a no-fly zone in Libya (which requires suspiciously many areal bombing), naval missions to protect selected cargo vessels from pirates in the Gulf of Aden or intimidating training missions in Iraq. Even Afghanistan was an offensive mission (with a defensive excuse). NATO’s offensive operations outnumber defensive missions 6 to 0.