5 ms·

NATO is a mutual-defense alliance. It's not a defend-everyone-else alliance. Finland, Sweden, Ireland, Switzerland, Georgia, Moldova, would not send troops to

by q1w2 5y ago

NATO is a mutual-defense alliance. It's not a defend-everyone-else alliance. Finland, Sweden, Ireland, Switzerland, Georgia, Moldova, would not send troops to defend Russia attacking a NATO member like Latvia, for example. I want those countries to join NATO. NATO members get military protection - non-NATO members do not. We need to keep the rules crystal clear because one of the most important factors in preventing nuclear escalation is predictability.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
bcrosby95 5y ago
But the world isn't divided into Russia, NATO, and countries no one cares if they're invaded. Just because a country is part of NATO, doesn't mean that that country can't respond to an invasion of a non-NATO country. And just because a country isn't part of NATO, doesn't mean they wouldn't help NATO either.
tablespoon 5y ago
> NATO is a mutual-defense alliance. It's not a defend-everyone-else alliance. > Finland, Sweden, Ireland, Switzerland, Georgia, Moldova, would not send troops to defend Russia attacking a NATO member like Latvia, for example. It's not as clear cut as you make it sound: 1. Ukraine has wanted to join NATO for some time, and at at least some NATO countries have expressed a wish for it to join. 2. IIRC, Ukraine also sent troops to Afghanistan, which I believe was technically a defend-the-US NATO mission. > We need to keep the rules crystal clear because one of the most important factors in preventing nuclear escalation is predictability. IIRC, that's mainly about the use of nuclear forces themselves. It's also possible to be too predictable, which lets someone rules-lawyer you into submission, or to be callously bureaucratic and legalistic.
- calyth2018 5y ago
  > 1. Ukraine has wanted to join NATO for some time, and at at least some NATO countries have expressed a wish for it to join. Which ones? France and Germany weren't particularly too warm about it. Heck, NSC Anthony Lake to Clinton's first term thrown it out there to let Ukraine join NATO and his colleague responded that it is the "reddest of red lines" back in 1993[0] As NATO enlarged since the fall of the iron curtain, it's neo-containment of Russia. As new countries are added to the alliance, they form the new eastern border, where if conflict starts, it would be on their soil. There'd be self-interest to encourage adding others to move it further east. It's not a judgement on them - if I was running a place that forms the eastern front of a containment alliance, I'd want someone to take my place too. 0: https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300259933/not-one-inch https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300259933/not-one-inch
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > Which ones? France and Germany weren't particularly too warm about it. The US. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/apr/01/nato.georgia https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/apr/01/nato.georgia: > George Bush this morning said he "strongly supported" Ukraine's attempt to join Nato, and warned he would not allow Russia to veto its membership bid. And they had enough support at the time that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations#Bucharest_summit:_2008%E2%80%932009 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations...: > At the NATO summit in Bucharest in April 2008, NATO decided it would not yet offer membership to Georgia and Ukraine; nevertheless, Nato Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said that Georgia and Ukraine would eventually become members.[44]
    - calyth2018 5y ago
      You understand that US is the principle architect of neo-containment since the iron curtain fell, since the 90s right. So of course US would want Ukraine to join.
      - tablespoon 5y ago
        >>>> 1. Ukraine has wanted to join NATO for some time, and at at least some NATO countries have expressed a wish for it to join. >>> Which ones? >> The US. > So of course US would want Ukraine to join. Then why ask "which ones"? The point is Ukraine isn't totally outside of NATO unless you're being absurdly legalistic, and it's quite possible it would have come to a NATO country's defense.
        calyth2018 5y ago
        NATO is an alliance led by the US. US drives most of the policy, but within NATO there’s still a lip service to get consensus within. US wants Ukraine in NATO is a given, because it would make neo-containment so much easier. The question that I ask is which other countries in the NATO is hot on the heels to let Ukraine in? It’s certainly not Western European countries who rightly recognized that such a move is a provocation to the Russian and likely to drag themselves in a conflict that they don’t want to be in, something that’s paid in money, bullets and blood. The newly added members on the eastern edge of NATO in their self interest, might want that, but I don’t think they’re dumb enough to be that vocal about it for the same reasons as the Western Europeans. > The point is Ukraine isn't totally outside of NATO unless you're being absurdly legalistic, and it's quite possible it would have come to a NATO country's defense. No. This statement above is the absurd one. Ukraine is outside of NATO. Do you see US boots on the ground? France? UK? Germany? Poland? No. NATO members has article 5, which means members have to come to the defence of a member being attacked. Invocation of article 5 obligates the rest of the members to fight, there’s no choice there. Why would Ukraine come to a NATO country’s defence? Ukraine isn’t obligated to do so, but it can choose to. Choosing to help a NATO country’s defence has no bearing on whether one is in the alliance.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> NATO is a mutual-defense alliance. It's not a defend-everyone-else alliance. NATO is a regional security alliance that also includes a mutual defense obligation; it is not just a mutual defense alliance. Most NATO operations and missions, including most of those involving active combat, have not been mutual defense missions under Article 5. > Finland, Sweden, Ireland, Switzerland, Georgia, Moldova, would not send troops to defend Russia attacking a NATO member like Latvia, for example. That's purely speculative; they absolutely could legally and indeed Ireland, as a fellow EU member, has a mutual defense commitment to Latvia without being a NATO member. The existence of one treaty with mutual defense obligations does not prohibit collective self-defense between nations that aren't members, from o a non-member to a member, or from a member to a non-member without another treaty, nor does it prevent the existence of partially overlapping treaty organizations with mutual defense commitments. Kosovo’s ethnic Albanian population in 1999 weren't a NATO member state.

by q1w2 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

bcrosby95 5y ago

But the world isn't divided into Russia, NATO, and countries no one cares if they're invaded. Just because a country is part of NATO, doesn't mean that that country can't respond to an invasion of a non-NATO country. And just because a country isn't part of NATO, doesn't mean they wouldn't help NATO either.

tablespoon 5y ago

> NATO is a mutual-defense alliance. It's not a defend-everyone-else alliance. > Finland, Sweden, Ireland, Switzerland, Georgia, Moldova, would not send troops to defend Russia attacking a NATO member like Latvia, for example. It's not as clear cut as you make it sound: 1. Ukraine has wanted to join NATO for some time, and at at least some NATO countries have expressed a wish for it to join. 2. IIRC, Ukraine also sent troops to Afghanistan, which I believe was technically a defend-the-US NATO mission. > We need to keep the rules crystal clear because one of the most important factors in preventing nuclear escalation is predictability. IIRC, that's mainly about the use of nuclear forces themselves. It's also possible to be too predictable, which lets someone rules-lawyer you into submission, or to be callously bureaucratic and legalistic.

calyth2018 5y ago
> 1. Ukraine has wanted to join NATO for some time, and at at least some NATO countries have expressed a wish for it to join. Which ones? France and Germany weren't particularly too warm about it. Heck, NSC Anthony Lake to Clinton's first term thrown it out there to let Ukraine join NATO and his colleague responded that it is the "reddest of red lines" back in 1993[0] As NATO enlarged since the fall of the iron curtain, it's neo-containment of Russia. As new countries are added to the alliance, they form the new eastern border, where if conflict starts, it would be on their soil. There'd be self-interest to encourage adding others to move it further east. It's not a judgement on them - if I was running a place that forms the eastern front of a containment alliance, I'd want someone to take my place too. 0: https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300259933/not-one-inch https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300259933/not-one-inch
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > Which ones? France and Germany weren't particularly too warm about it. The US. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/apr/01/nato.georgia https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/apr/01/nato.georgia: > George Bush this morning said he "strongly supported" Ukraine's attempt to join Nato, and warned he would not allow Russia to veto its membership bid. And they had enough support at the time that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations#Bucharest_summit:_2008%E2%80%932009 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations...: > At the NATO summit in Bucharest in April 2008, NATO decided it would not yet offer membership to Georgia and Ukraine; nevertheless, Nato Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said that Georgia and Ukraine would eventually become members.[44]
  - calyth2018 5y ago
    You understand that US is the principle architect of neo-containment since the iron curtain fell, since the 90s right. So of course US would want Ukraine to join.
    - tablespoon 5y ago
      >>>> 1. Ukraine has wanted to join NATO for some time, and at at least some NATO countries have expressed a wish for it to join. >>> Which ones? >> The US. > So of course US would want Ukraine to join. Then why ask "which ones"? The point is Ukraine isn't totally outside of NATO unless you're being absurdly legalistic, and it's quite possible it would have come to a NATO country's defense.
      - calyth2018 5y ago
        NATO is an alliance led by the US. US drives most of the policy, but within NATO there’s still a lip service to get consensus within. US wants Ukraine in NATO is a given, because it would make neo-containment so much easier. The question that I ask is which other countries in the NATO is hot on the heels to let Ukraine in? It’s certainly not Western European countries who rightly recognized that such a move is a provocation to the Russian and likely to drag themselves in a conflict that they don’t want to be in, something that’s paid in money, bullets and blood. The newly added members on the eastern edge of NATO in their self interest, might want that, but I don’t think they’re dumb enough to be that vocal about it for the same reasons as the Western Europeans. > The point is Ukraine isn't totally outside of NATO unless you're being absurdly legalistic, and it's quite possible it would have come to a NATO country's defense. No. This statement above is the absurd one. Ukraine is outside of NATO. Do you see US boots on the ground? France? UK? Germany? Poland? No. NATO members has article 5, which means members have to come to the defence of a member being attacked. Invocation of article 5 obligates the rest of the members to fight, there’s no choice there. Why would Ukraine come to a NATO country’s defence? Ukraine isn’t obligated to do so, but it can choose to. Choosing to help a NATO country’s defence has no bearing on whether one is in the alliance.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> NATO is a mutual-defense alliance. It's not a defend-everyone-else alliance. NATO is a regional security alliance that also includes a mutual defense obligation; it is not just a mutual defense alliance. Most NATO operations and missions, including most of those involving active combat, have not been mutual defense missions under Article 5. > Finland, Sweden, Ireland, Switzerland, Georgia, Moldova, would not send troops to defend Russia attacking a NATO member like Latvia, for example. That's purely speculative; they absolutely could legally and indeed Ireland, as a fellow EU member, has a mutual defense commitment to Latvia without being a NATO member. The existence of one treaty with mutual defense obligations does not prohibit collective self-defense between nations that aren't members, from o a non-member to a member, or from a member to a non-member without another treaty, nor does it prevent the existence of partially overlapping treaty organizations with mutual defense commitments. Kosovo’s ethnic Albanian population in 1999 weren't a NATO member state.