4 ms·

But do this promise makes sense? NATO it's not a "sentient entity", that choose to expand. Instead are the states that ask to join it. No one forced Poland, Hun

by _ZeD_ 5y ago

But do this promise makes sense? NATO it's not a "sentient entity", that choose to expand. Instead are the states that ask to join it. No one forced Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia to join NATO

axiomsEnd 5y ago
From perspective of some people, like here, countries from ex-Soviet block do not exist and do not make sovereign decisions about their aliences. It's really weird to read (mostly US-based, left-wing) authors who simply forget about whole nations just to push USA-bad narrative. Which is even more disturbing once you see what kind of parties in Europe are pro-Russia.
- qsort 5y ago
  Indeed, but that sentiment is by no means limited to the US. It's a story older than I am, even real intellectuals (like Chomsky himself) are consumed by this idea that whatever happens and no matter what's the reality of the situation, America must somehow be the bad guy.
  - axiomsEnd 5y ago
    I guess it started with Cold War, and Chomsky is just part of the generation that distrusted goverment due to internal issues (racism, womans laws, etc), but later started beliving that information about USSR are also fake. What is weird from my perspective is shifting this perspective to modern Russia. When USSR tried to push pro-feminist, pro-international propaganga against USA, current Russia and pro-Russia movements are not hiding their disgust with LGBT+, abortion, multiculturalism and such. Which looks like minorities in this countries should be sacrificed on altar of anti-USA sentiment.
CapricornNoble 5y ago
>>>No one forced Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia to join NATO No, but the US should have carefully measured (and probably rejected) any interest from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Georgia, and Ukraine. Accession into NATO requires unanimous endorsement from all extant members. The most powerful member of the alliance saying "No" sends an even stronger signal. And then we should have offered military training, maybe even subsidized armament sales (aka "foreign aid") to encourage a strong self-defense capability....but NO formalized or even informal assurances of mutual defense, and no US assets based in their borders. I think that would have been a smart compromise: help these countries make themselves too costly to invade, without making Russia more paranoid and without growing our "surface area" of treaty risks.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > No, but the US should have carefully measured (and probably rejected) any interest from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Georgia, and Ukraine. Why? Should we also have rejected the interest of the Russian Federation expressed first in a letter from their President to NATO in 1991, formalized when they joined the Partnership for Peace in 1994, and at the time the first three on your list were admitted still being actively worked toward by both the Russian and NATO sides?
  - CapricornNoble 5y ago
    >>>Why? So that we could focus 100% of our attention on stuffing the CCP Dragon back in a box before it's too late. >>>Should we also have rejected the interest of the Russian Federation Compare the strategic utility of Russia in our alliance (#2 nuclear power in the world, extremely large military, shares a border with China) with the strategic utility of the Baltic states. I'd rather have NATO-member Russian tank divisions positioned to attack China's naked rear, backed by Russian ICBMs, helping us. I would argue the US hasn't fought an industrial power out of its weight class.....ever. When we eventually fight the CCP, we're going against a nation that is embarrassing us with its shipbuilding capacity, has 4x the manpower to draw on, and will be operating with shorter logistical lines. We need Russia, India, South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Philippines...all of them to help. We need the Russians to do this again: ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Manchuria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Manchuria ), while the US Pacific Fleet and JMSDF sink the PLAN, with India/Vietnam/Korea providing basing for the US Air Force. How does Estonia help us topple the only other Great Power on the planet? The only other serious challenger to US hegemony?
    - kaba0 5y ago
      First of all, that’s a very US-centric view. Second of all, as seen from this ongoing war, Russia is no longer a super-power, hell, it doesn’t even have a considerably good military to begin with. But in all seriousness, if it were to come to a US-CCP war, everyone would equivalently loose no matter what.
- 5y ago

by _ZeD_ 5y ago

But do this promise makes sense? NATO it's not a "sentient entity", that choose to expand. Instead are the states that ask to join it. No one forced Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia to join NATO

axiomsEnd 5y ago

From perspective of some people, like here, countries from ex-Soviet block do not exist and do not make sovereign decisions about their aliences. It's really weird to read (mostly US-based, left-wing) authors who simply forget about whole nations just to push USA-bad narrative. Which is even more disturbing once you see what kind of parties in Europe are pro-Russia.

qsort 5y ago
Indeed, but that sentiment is by no means limited to the US. It's a story older than I am, even real intellectuals (like Chomsky himself) are consumed by this idea that whatever happens and no matter what's the reality of the situation, America must somehow be the bad guy.
- axiomsEnd 5y ago
  I guess it started with Cold War, and Chomsky is just part of the generation that distrusted goverment due to internal issues (racism, womans laws, etc), but later started beliving that information about USSR are also fake. What is weird from my perspective is shifting this perspective to modern Russia. When USSR tried to push pro-feminist, pro-international propaganga against USA, current Russia and pro-Russia movements are not hiding their disgust with LGBT+, abortion, multiculturalism and such. Which looks like minorities in this countries should be sacrificed on altar of anti-USA sentiment.

CapricornNoble 5y ago

>>>No one forced Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia to join NATO No, but the US should have carefully measured (and probably rejected) any interest from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Georgia, and Ukraine. Accession into NATO requires unanimous endorsement from all extant members. The most powerful member of the alliance saying "No" sends an even stronger signal. And then we should have offered military training, maybe even subsidized armament sales (aka "foreign aid") to encourage a strong self-defense capability....but NO formalized or even informal assurances of mutual defense, and no US assets based in their borders. I think that would have been a smart compromise: help these countries make themselves too costly to invade, without making Russia more paranoid and without growing our "surface area" of treaty risks.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> No, but the US should have carefully measured (and probably rejected) any interest from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Georgia, and Ukraine. Why? Should we also have rejected the interest of the Russian Federation expressed first in a letter from their President to NATO in 1991, formalized when they joined the Partnership for Peace in 1994, and at the time the first three on your list were admitted still being actively worked toward by both the Russian and NATO sides?
- CapricornNoble 5y ago
  >>>Why? So that we could focus 100% of our attention on stuffing the CCP Dragon back in a box before it's too late. >>>Should we also have rejected the interest of the Russian Federation Compare the strategic utility of Russia in our alliance (#2 nuclear power in the world, extremely large military, shares a border with China) with the strategic utility of the Baltic states. I'd rather have NATO-member Russian tank divisions positioned to attack China's naked rear, backed by Russian ICBMs, helping us. I would argue the US hasn't fought an industrial power out of its weight class.....ever. When we eventually fight the CCP, we're going against a nation that is embarrassing us with its shipbuilding capacity, has 4x the manpower to draw on, and will be operating with shorter logistical lines. We need Russia, India, South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Philippines...all of them to help. We need the Russians to do this again: ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Manchuria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Manchuria ), while the US Pacific Fleet and JMSDF sink the PLAN, with India/Vietnam/Korea providing basing for the US Air Force. How does Estonia help us topple the only other Great Power on the planet? The only other serious challenger to US hegemony?
  - kaba0 5y ago
    First of all, that’s a very US-centric view. Second of all, as seen from this ongoing war, Russia is no longer a super-power, hell, it doesn’t even have a considerably good military to begin with. But in all seriousness, if it were to come to a US-CCP war, everyone would equivalently loose no matter what.
5y ago