4 ms·

Time for NATO to Close Its Door

13 points by eternalban 5y ago

jleyank 5y ago
Or, follow Tom Clancy and just let Russia join.
908B64B197 5y ago
Time for all member states to at least contribute their fair share maybe?
eternalban 5y ago
Foreign Affairs is a CFR organ and the timing of this article is provocative. The old saying was if it is published in Foreign Affairs, then it will be policy in 10 years (at most). https://www.cfr.org/ https://www.cfr.org/
baybal2 5y ago
This is the man who wrote this: https://books.google.co.id/books/about/The_Abandonment_of_the_West.html?id=P_9bxwEACAAJ&source=kp_author_description&redir_esc https://books.google.co.id/books/about/The_Abandonment_of_th... Decide for yourself if this man gets his salary in Kremlin. Normally, Russian security officials will never even in a bad nightmare give anybody an interview, let alone some obscure random American academician.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  Can we discuss the idea on its merits? What ideas do you criticise in that book? I haven't read it and maybe his ideas are wrong. To just point the finger seems to be shallow criticism.
uejfiweun 5y ago
Probably controversial opinion: I 100% agree with this, and in fact I think NATO should be heavily reformed. It was founded when Europe was a smoking crater and the West was staring down the barrel of the much bigger army of the USSR. I think it made a lot of sense back then, because without it the Soviets would have easily conquered Europe. Now? The US is no longer > 50% of the world's GDP, the USSR is no more, and Europe is completely rebuilt, with social safety nets unmatched in their generosity. Europe absolutely has the means to defend itself, and I think it's very selfish that they don't. The US has spent 20 years at war, is completely polarized, and just doesn't have the means to keep doing this. As far as I can tell, the only Americans who benefit from NATO are the rich executives who get to sell their stuff in E. Europe, and defense companies that benefit from the international tension. But it doesn't help the average joe in the slightest. Now we are about to have a major conflict with Russia over NATO expansion, and I'm sitting here asking why? Why did we need to expand in the first place? There are very few people in this world who know why the West does what it does, but to a regular wagie like myself, it seems like nothing but unrestrained greed and aggression.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Now we are about to have a major conflict with Russia over NATO expansion Russia doesn't keep biting off pieces of Ukraine because of NATO expansion, it keep whining about NATO expansion because that's a potential constraint on Russia biting off pieces of its neighbors.
  - uejfiweun 5y ago
    You're not wrong, but I would say that the US should not be getting involved with the immediate neighbors of a powerful country like Russia. It just seems to me like a very aggressive policy, where the potential downsides outweigh the upsides. Upsides: S&P 500 execs get bigger bonuses because they captured the Ukraine market. Downsides: conflict with a great power.
    - raxxorrax 5y ago
      100% agreed. Although it should be said that the US has a history there too. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapester_Memorandum https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapester_Memorandum Ukraine had a revolution that did violate their constitution, but that is a technicality. Russia proposed the successor government to be illegitimate. A mistake of the US under Bush certainly was to get involved there.
- nuclearGiorgos 5y ago
  > Europe absolutely has the means to defend itself, and I think it's very selfish that they don't. When was the last time you checked the armies of each country in European Union? France has the biggest and most respectable army and second comes... Greece. Most EU states have sold one or more of their branches (completely) and guess what... they've forgotten to even train them! > The US has spent 20 years at war, is completely polarized, and just doesn't have the means to keep doing this. The US has a booming war economy and it's not prepared to shrink it at all.
nuclearGiorgos 5y ago
Two things: 1. No one in European Union wants to be in war with Russia for Ukraine. I highly doubt it even if one of it's states was fighting a defensive war against Russia. 2.The word Turkey comes up just once in this article and Greece well, not even mentioned. Two of the most faithful members (that both pay their fare share in NATO) who happen to be in a pre-war situation with each other. NATO would not engage in a situation between it's members according to its article of association.
haspoken 5y ago
https://archive.is/jczlT https://archive.is/jczlT

13 points by eternalban 5y ago

jleyank 5y ago

Or, follow Tom Clancy and just let Russia join.

908B64B197 5y ago

Time for all member states to at least contribute their fair share maybe?

eternalban 5y ago

Foreign Affairs is a CFR organ and the timing of this article is provocative. The old saying was if it is published in Foreign Affairs, then it will be policy in 10 years (at most). https://www.cfr.org/ https://www.cfr.org/

baybal2 5y ago

This is the man who wrote this: https://books.google.co.id/books/about/The_Abandonment_of_the_West.html?id=P_9bxwEACAAJ&source=kp_author_description&redir_esc https://books.google.co.id/books/about/The_Abandonment_of_th... Decide for yourself if this man gets his salary in Kremlin. Normally, Russian security officials will never even in a bad nightmare give anybody an interview, let alone some obscure random American academician.

raxxorrax 5y ago
Can we discuss the idea on its merits? What ideas do you criticise in that book? I haven't read it and maybe his ideas are wrong. To just point the finger seems to be shallow criticism.

uejfiweun 5y ago

Probably controversial opinion: I 100% agree with this, and in fact I think NATO should be heavily reformed. It was founded when Europe was a smoking crater and the West was staring down the barrel of the much bigger army of the USSR. I think it made a lot of sense back then, because without it the Soviets would have easily conquered Europe. Now? The US is no longer > 50% of the world's GDP, the USSR is no more, and Europe is completely rebuilt, with social safety nets unmatched in their generosity. Europe absolutely has the means to defend itself, and I think it's very selfish that they don't. The US has spent 20 years at war, is completely polarized, and just doesn't have the means to keep doing this. As far as I can tell, the only Americans who benefit from NATO are the rich executives who get to sell their stuff in E. Europe, and defense companies that benefit from the international tension. But it doesn't help the average joe in the slightest. Now we are about to have a major conflict with Russia over NATO expansion, and I'm sitting here asking why? Why did we need to expand in the first place? There are very few people in this world who know why the West does what it does, but to a regular wagie like myself, it seems like nothing but unrestrained greed and aggression.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> Now we are about to have a major conflict with Russia over NATO expansion Russia doesn't keep biting off pieces of Ukraine because of NATO expansion, it keep whining about NATO expansion because that's a potential constraint on Russia biting off pieces of its neighbors.
- uejfiweun 5y ago
  You're not wrong, but I would say that the US should not be getting involved with the immediate neighbors of a powerful country like Russia. It just seems to me like a very aggressive policy, where the potential downsides outweigh the upsides. Upsides: S&P 500 execs get bigger bonuses because they captured the Ukraine market. Downsides: conflict with a great power.
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    100% agreed. Although it should be said that the US has a history there too. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapester_Memorandum https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapester_Memorandum Ukraine had a revolution that did violate their constitution, but that is a technicality. Russia proposed the successor government to be illegitimate. A mistake of the US under Bush certainly was to get involved there.
nuclearGiorgos 5y ago
> Europe absolutely has the means to defend itself, and I think it's very selfish that they don't. When was the last time you checked the armies of each country in European Union? France has the biggest and most respectable army and second comes... Greece. Most EU states have sold one or more of their branches (completely) and guess what... they've forgotten to even train them! > The US has spent 20 years at war, is completely polarized, and just doesn't have the means to keep doing this. The US has a booming war economy and it's not prepared to shrink it at all.

nuclearGiorgos 5y ago

Two things: 1. No one in European Union wants to be in war with Russia for Ukraine. I highly doubt it even if one of it's states was fighting a defensive war against Russia. 2.The word Turkey comes up just once in this article and Greece well, not even mentioned. Two of the most faithful members (that both pay their fare share in NATO) who happen to be in a pre-war situation with each other. NATO would not engage in a situation between it's members according to its article of association.

haspoken 5y ago

https://archive.is/jczlT https://archive.is/jczlT