9 ms·

NATO no longer bound by commitments to Russia, to beef up East Europe presence

30 points by Imagenuity 4y ago

vlindos 4y ago
leto_ii 4y ago
Like a lot of Romanians, I have a very dim view of Mircea Geoană as a statesman or diplomat. The fact that he somehow became NATO Deputy Secretary General only reinforces my suspicion that NATO is quasi-irrelevant as an institution distinct of American interests. NATO (Stoltenberg, Geoană etc.) will act strictly the way America wants them to act. For now it seems America prefers escalation, so the war will go on...
- VictorPath 4y ago
  - heneryville 4y ago
    Ukraine is still making the front page on CNN, ABC, New York Times, Washington Post, and NPR. The Ukrainians will decide what to sacrifice and what not to.
  - cafard 4y ago
    As I recall, in 1939 or 1940, the Germans said that the United Kingdom was willing to fight to the last Frenchman. You write from within a rich tradition.
  - OrvalWintermute 4y ago
    I understand completely what you are saying ironically. However, this is a civil war between Eastern Ukrainians that are ethnic Russians, and in the Russian Sphere of influence/control and Western Ukrainians that are ethnically mixed, and in the Western Sphere of influence. It is also a Great Power Competition by Proxy with NATO on one side, and the Russians on the other. If Russia loses Ukraine, the strategic depth to Russia that enabled them to grind down the Wehrmacht, and Napoleon's army with their prominent allies General Winter and Colonel Mud, will largely be lost. Given how much they have to lose I will be suprised if Russia does not head towards full and complete mobilization of their entire nation.
    - mcv 4y ago
      It's not much of a civil war. Those separatists are mostly Russians acting on Putin's orders. I don't think there was ever a majority in Donbas for independence or joining Russia. The only reason the separatists got as far as they did, is because they were entirely propped up by Russia. The only reason Russia is losing anything at all, is because Putin chooses hostility. Before Putin, relations between Russia and NATO were quite warm. There have been joint exercises, and there was even talk of Russia joining NATO. Putin chose otherwise, and that's hurting Russia. Russia would do well to get rid of him as soon as possible, and replace him with someone more reasonable and interested in peace.
      - OrvalWintermute 4y ago
        > It's not much of a civil war. It is definitely a civil war. Hit squads from the West were operating in the East, and the Ukrainian Army has been bombing, mortaring, and rocketing civilian and non-military targets back in 2014. A good example is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pooFkZzmtNc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pooFkZzmtNc in Lugansk (warning, this is very graphic) also covered under https://www.osce.org/ukraine-smm/119479 https://www.osce.org/ukraine-smm/119479 > Those separatists are mostly Russians acting on Putin's orders. I don't think there was ever a majority in Donbas for independence or joining Russia. The only reason the separatists got as far as they did, is because they were entirely propped up by Russia. When I've been in Ukraine pre-coup and pre-war, the Western part is completely in the European sphere, and loosely connected to Russia. Sure, they may speak Russian, Ukrainian and some English, but they think of themselves as Ukrainians. Eastern Ukraine is really little Russia, ethnically, language, culture, economics, all Russian. One of the guys I know there, prior to everything w. the coup and all that, just uprooted and moved to Moscow. Of the friends there, many held Russian passports, with family in Russia.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
    You are mistaken. Russia's invasion of Ukraine is front page of the NY Times as of right now.
  - PolandKid 4y ago
    "yesterday's news" - haha. always towing the Moscow line, aren't ya Vik? Go back to Russia (Polagaya, chto tak ne svjazan v Glavset, kak horoshij pes, kotoryj ty est'.)
- libertine 4y ago
  >For now it seems America prefers escalation, so the war will go on... I don't get this narrative - what escalation? What's there to be escalated? Russia will invade more countries? Russia will start a war with NATO?
  - OrvalWintermute 4y ago
    > I don't get this narrative - what escalation? What's there to be escalated? Continually moving a hostile presence closer, and performing strategic encirclement, with missiles, is part of Russia's argument. This is an old argument too, and well known. The well-known late Stephen F Cohen (2010) https://www.youtube.com/embed/mciLyG9iexE https://www.youtube.com/embed/mciLyG9iexE The eminent John Mearsheimer (2015) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-r4Oo-5vDvo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-r4Oo-5vDvo You were saying?
    - sorokod 4y ago
      Isn't Russian, by occupying Ukrainian territory, is moving the hostile presence closer?
      - pessimizer 4y ago
        You can't get closer than NATO missiles on the border.
        OrvalWintermute 4y ago
        There is a big difference between NATO missiles in a NATO-Ukraine, or NATO missiles in Poland.
        sorokod 4y ago
        Or Finland?
      - OrvalWintermute 4y ago
- gattilorenz 4y ago
  > the war will go on ...until Russia stops invading Ukraine, or successfully conquers it. Do you think going back and bringing the polish army at the border in August 1939 should also be classified as "escalation"? Or, better, the Dutch army at the border of The Netherlands in April 1940?
  - justsomehnguy 4y ago
    Hmm, why did you stop at 1939? 1938 has athing to say, too: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement
- chitowneats 4y ago
  Yes. The military alliance of NATO is a bargain where American dollars subsidize European security in exchange for greater geopolitical influence for the U.S. Whether this is good or bad from your perspective depends on many, many factors. But that is the truth.
- Teever 4y ago
  If NATO is merely an extension of American will and always has been then what made Sweden and Finland finally want to join now after all these years?
  - chitowneats 4y ago
    Losing some amount of autonomy to the U.S. is far preferable to what we are seeing in Ukraine, or even Belarus. Edit: That being said, Sweden and Finland were already quite integrated as NATO partners. It's unclear to me, a layman, how much is really changing vs. just being formally declared.
    - guerrilla 4y ago
      Not just to the US, but to Turkey. From day one, they demanded we abandon the Kurds abroad, brand them all terrorists and hand over political refugees to them and, starting today, sell them weapons. We had a ban on weapons export to Turkey but now half of our biggest parties refuse to comment on whether that will be upheld.
      - ipaddr 4y ago
        Isn't Turkey vetoing Sweden and Finland entry into nato?
        guerrilla 4y ago
        They're threatening to unless we concede to all of their demands (which keep multiplying.) Sorry for the confusion, I should have been clearer.
  - guerrilla 4y ago
    I would say American lobbying and propaganda in Sweden and Finland, which we've had for decades. We were already de facto members anyway though. On the other hand, it's not like we had a choice. We voted for anti-NATO parties who, after the war started, changed their position and rejected any referendum and refused to wait until the autumn elections. Polls showed that a majority in Sweden didn't want to join if Finland didn't (and a majority did if Finland did), so you can effectively restrict your question to Finland (maybe someone else here has more details on their case.) There was a good reason for joining if Finland did though. We dismantled a lot of our military at the end the cold war and so we relied on an exclusive partnership with Finland; thus, without them, we'd be pretty weak.
- leto_ii 4y ago
  UPDATE COMMENT: I guess I should have known I was poking the dragon with this one, sorry for that. Just to clarify things a bit, here's my general position: 1. I have complete sympathy and respect for the Ukrainian cause. They are fighting heroically to defend their country against imperialist aggression. I think my country (Romania) should continue to help refugees as much as possible and should offer military support, with the caveat that this support should be sized appropriately. 2. While in the relation Ukraine-Russia it's clear who's the aggressor and who the victim, there's a second dimension to this war, namely the US-Russia conflict. For decades the US has extended NATO towards Russian borders and into what Russia considers its sphere of influence. Does Russia have a right to have a sphere of influence? No, no country does. Nevertheless, this is how the world works. America knows this full well (see the fuss it makes over developments in Equatorial Guinea [1] and the Solomon Islands [2]). They have decided to expand NATO not because of some great love for Eastern Europe, but because they're playing great power politics. This cynical game has now reached the hot war phase. If it wanted to, America could force the sides to start peace negotiations - it's vastly more economically and militarily powerful than Russia; and by now I think even Putin understands how badly he miscalculated this invasion. Alas, that's not what America wants - its stated goal is that of weakening Russia [3], not of reaching peace. The subtext here is that they're willing to let Ukrainians die, as long as more Russians die as well. [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-aims-to-thwart-chinas-plan-for-atlantic-base-in-africa-11644607931 https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-aims-to-thwart-chinas-plan-... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/26/us-wont-rule-out-military-action-if-china-establishes-base-in-solomon-islands https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/26/us-wont-rule-o... [3] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/25/russia-weakedend-lloyd-austin-ukraine https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/25/russia-weakede...
juanani 4y ago
abraxas 4y ago
I don't get why such commitments were made in the first place. Why is it OK for Russia to be dictating what sovereign countries can or cannot do within their own borders? Especially now, given their behaviour on the world stage the West shouldn't pay slightest heed to Russia's demands. Why is it always the liberal democracies that need to bend to the will of the dictators? How about for once we just say "no" to a tyrant? Also in case you're going to pull out some kind of whataboutism with regards to America's behaviour on the world stage, please spare me. America's no saint but if you're equating its shenanigans with Russia's you have no clue what you're talking about. I grew up behind the iron curtain so I experienced the "Russian Mir" first hand. NATO is not encroaching on Russia. It's the countries bordering Russia that are running the fuck away from its awful embrace. No country that joined NATO after 1989 did it because they were being coerced. They all _begged_ to be admitted and made a lot of sacrifices to get in. Dwell on that before you give credence to any Russia apologetics.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  > I grew up behind the iron curtain so I experienced the "Russian Mir" first hand. You and millions of others. So that gives you some sort of privilege to tell everyone about America and NATO? Also, Russia is not the USSR.
  - abraxas 4y ago
    > Also, Russia is not the USSR. Russia is a direct inheritor of the legacy of USSR. Culturally as well as legally. But I digress. My personal experience is but one data point for you and other westerners. Just be aware that sometimes a spade really is a spade and when I and millions like me tell you that Russia is a piece of shit neighbour then maybe just maybe we are on to something more so than American born, basement dwelling teenage edgelords who tell you otherwise?
    - yesbut 4y ago
      I just view Russia's position similarly to how the US would perceive China wanting to build a security alliance with Canada and Mexico and install advanced weapons systems (capable of reaching US cities in minutes) along Canadia/US and Mexico/US borders. From that perspective it isn't difficult to comprehend why NATO (basically the US) setting up shop on Russia's borders might be perceived as antagonistic to Russia. This isn't rocket surgery.
Tainnor 4y ago
Wow, this is the first time I see a comment section where every top level comment is greyed out.

30 points by Imagenuity 4y ago

Like a lot of Romanians, I have a very dim view of Mircea Geoană as a statesman or diplomat. The fact that he somehow became NATO Deputy Secretary General only reinforces my suspicion that NATO is quasi-irrelevant as an institution distinct of American interests. NATO (Stoltenberg, Geoană etc.) will act strictly the way America wants them to act. For now it seems America prefers escalation, so the war will go on...

VictorPath 4y ago
- heneryville 4y ago
  Ukraine is still making the front page on CNN, ABC, New York Times, Washington Post, and NPR. The Ukrainians will decide what to sacrifice and what not to.
- cafard 4y ago
  As I recall, in 1939 or 1940, the Germans said that the United Kingdom was willing to fight to the last Frenchman. You write from within a rich tradition.
- OrvalWintermute 4y ago
  I understand completely what you are saying ironically. However, this is a civil war between Eastern Ukrainians that are ethnic Russians, and in the Russian Sphere of influence/control and Western Ukrainians that are ethnically mixed, and in the Western Sphere of influence. It is also a Great Power Competition by Proxy with NATO on one side, and the Russians on the other. If Russia loses Ukraine, the strategic depth to Russia that enabled them to grind down the Wehrmacht, and Napoleon's army with their prominent allies General Winter and Colonel Mud, will largely be lost. Given how much they have to lose I will be suprised if Russia does not head towards full and complete mobilization of their entire nation.
  - mcv 4y ago
    It's not much of a civil war. Those separatists are mostly Russians acting on Putin's orders. I don't think there was ever a majority in Donbas for independence or joining Russia. The only reason the separatists got as far as they did, is because they were entirely propped up by Russia. The only reason Russia is losing anything at all, is because Putin chooses hostility. Before Putin, relations between Russia and NATO were quite warm. There have been joint exercises, and there was even talk of Russia joining NATO. Putin chose otherwise, and that's hurting Russia. Russia would do well to get rid of him as soon as possible, and replace him with someone more reasonable and interested in peace.
    - OrvalWintermute 4y ago
      > It's not much of a civil war. It is definitely a civil war. Hit squads from the West were operating in the East, and the Ukrainian Army has been bombing, mortaring, and rocketing civilian and non-military targets back in 2014. A good example is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pooFkZzmtNc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pooFkZzmtNc in Lugansk (warning, this is very graphic) also covered under https://www.osce.org/ukraine-smm/119479 https://www.osce.org/ukraine-smm/119479 > Those separatists are mostly Russians acting on Putin's orders. I don't think there was ever a majority in Donbas for independence or joining Russia. The only reason the separatists got as far as they did, is because they were entirely propped up by Russia. When I've been in Ukraine pre-coup and pre-war, the Western part is completely in the European sphere, and loosely connected to Russia. Sure, they may speak Russian, Ukrainian and some English, but they think of themselves as Ukrainians. Eastern Ukraine is really little Russia, ethnically, language, culture, economics, all Russian. One of the guys I know there, prior to everything w. the coup and all that, just uprooted and moved to Moscow. Of the friends there, many held Russian passports, with family in Russia.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
  You are mistaken. Russia's invasion of Ukraine is front page of the NY Times as of right now.
- PolandKid 4y ago
  "yesterday's news" - haha. always towing the Moscow line, aren't ya Vik? Go back to Russia (Polagaya, chto tak ne svjazan v Glavset, kak horoshij pes, kotoryj ty est'.)
libertine 4y ago
>For now it seems America prefers escalation, so the war will go on... I don't get this narrative - what escalation? What's there to be escalated? Russia will invade more countries? Russia will start a war with NATO?
- OrvalWintermute 4y ago
  > I don't get this narrative - what escalation? What's there to be escalated? Continually moving a hostile presence closer, and performing strategic encirclement, with missiles, is part of Russia's argument. This is an old argument too, and well known. The well-known late Stephen F Cohen (2010) https://www.youtube.com/embed/mciLyG9iexE https://www.youtube.com/embed/mciLyG9iexE The eminent John Mearsheimer (2015) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-r4Oo-5vDvo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-r4Oo-5vDvo You were saying?
  - sorokod 4y ago
    Isn't Russian, by occupying Ukrainian territory, is moving the hostile presence closer?
    - pessimizer 4y ago
      You can't get closer than NATO missiles on the border.
      - OrvalWintermute 4y ago
        There is a big difference between NATO missiles in a NATO-Ukraine, or NATO missiles in Poland.
        sorokod 4y ago
        Or Finland?
    - OrvalWintermute 4y ago
gattilorenz 4y ago
> the war will go on ...until Russia stops invading Ukraine, or successfully conquers it. Do you think going back and bringing the polish army at the border in August 1939 should also be classified as "escalation"? Or, better, the Dutch army at the border of The Netherlands in April 1940?
- justsomehnguy 4y ago
  Hmm, why did you stop at 1939? 1938 has athing to say, too: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement
chitowneats 4y ago
Yes. The military alliance of NATO is a bargain where American dollars subsidize European security in exchange for greater geopolitical influence for the U.S. Whether this is good or bad from your perspective depends on many, many factors. But that is the truth.
Teever 4y ago
If NATO is merely an extension of American will and always has been then what made Sweden and Finland finally want to join now after all these years?
- chitowneats 4y ago
  Losing some amount of autonomy to the U.S. is far preferable to what we are seeing in Ukraine, or even Belarus. Edit: That being said, Sweden and Finland were already quite integrated as NATO partners. It's unclear to me, a layman, how much is really changing vs. just being formally declared.
  - guerrilla 4y ago
    Not just to the US, but to Turkey. From day one, they demanded we abandon the Kurds abroad, brand them all terrorists and hand over political refugees to them and, starting today, sell them weapons. We had a ban on weapons export to Turkey but now half of our biggest parties refuse to comment on whether that will be upheld.
    - ipaddr 4y ago
      Isn't Turkey vetoing Sweden and Finland entry into nato?
      - guerrilla 4y ago
        They're threatening to unless we concede to all of their demands (which keep multiplying.) Sorry for the confusion, I should have been clearer.
- guerrilla 4y ago
  I would say American lobbying and propaganda in Sweden and Finland, which we've had for decades. We were already de facto members anyway though. On the other hand, it's not like we had a choice. We voted for anti-NATO parties who, after the war started, changed their position and rejected any referendum and refused to wait until the autumn elections. Polls showed that a majority in Sweden didn't want to join if Finland didn't (and a majority did if Finland did), so you can effectively restrict your question to Finland (maybe someone else here has more details on their case.) There was a good reason for joining if Finland did though. We dismantled a lot of our military at the end the cold war and so we relied on an exclusive partnership with Finland; thus, without them, we'd be pretty weak.
leto_ii 4y ago
UPDATE COMMENT: I guess I should have known I was poking the dragon with this one, sorry for that. Just to clarify things a bit, here's my general position: 1. I have complete sympathy and respect for the Ukrainian cause. They are fighting heroically to defend their country against imperialist aggression. I think my country (Romania) should continue to help refugees as much as possible and should offer military support, with the caveat that this support should be sized appropriately. 2. While in the relation Ukraine-Russia it's clear who's the aggressor and who the victim, there's a second dimension to this war, namely the US-Russia conflict. For decades the US has extended NATO towards Russian borders and into what Russia considers its sphere of influence. Does Russia have a right to have a sphere of influence? No, no country does. Nevertheless, this is how the world works. America knows this full well (see the fuss it makes over developments in Equatorial Guinea [1] and the Solomon Islands [2]). They have decided to expand NATO not because of some great love for Eastern Europe, but because they're playing great power politics. This cynical game has now reached the hot war phase. If it wanted to, America could force the sides to start peace negotiations - it's vastly more economically and militarily powerful than Russia; and by now I think even Putin understands how badly he miscalculated this invasion. Alas, that's not what America wants - its stated goal is that of weakening Russia [3], not of reaching peace. The subtext here is that they're willing to let Ukrainians die, as long as more Russians die as well. [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-aims-to-thwart-chinas-plan-for-atlantic-base-in-africa-11644607931 https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-aims-to-thwart-chinas-plan-... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/26/us-wont-rule-out-military-action-if-china-establishes-base-in-solomon-islands https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/26/us-wont-rule-o... [3] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/25/russia-weakedend-lloyd-austin-ukraine https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/25/russia-weakede...

juanani 4y ago

abraxas 4y ago

I don't get why such commitments were made in the first place. Why is it OK for Russia to be dictating what sovereign countries can or cannot do within their own borders? Especially now, given their behaviour on the world stage the West shouldn't pay slightest heed to Russia's demands. Why is it always the liberal democracies that need to bend to the will of the dictators? How about for once we just say "no" to a tyrant? Also in case you're going to pull out some kind of whataboutism with regards to America's behaviour on the world stage, please spare me. America's no saint but if you're equating its shenanigans with Russia's you have no clue what you're talking about. I grew up behind the iron curtain so I experienced the "Russian Mir" first hand. NATO is not encroaching on Russia. It's the countries bordering Russia that are running the fuck away from its awful embrace. No country that joined NATO after 1989 did it because they were being coerced. They all _begged_ to be admitted and made a lot of sacrifices to get in. Dwell on that before you give credence to any Russia apologetics.

pessimizer 4y ago
> I grew up behind the iron curtain so I experienced the "Russian Mir" first hand. You and millions of others. So that gives you some sort of privilege to tell everyone about America and NATO? Also, Russia is not the USSR.
- abraxas 4y ago
  > Also, Russia is not the USSR. Russia is a direct inheritor of the legacy of USSR. Culturally as well as legally. But I digress. My personal experience is but one data point for you and other westerners. Just be aware that sometimes a spade really is a spade and when I and millions like me tell you that Russia is a piece of shit neighbour then maybe just maybe we are on to something more so than American born, basement dwelling teenage edgelords who tell you otherwise?
  - yesbut 4y ago
    I just view Russia's position similarly to how the US would perceive China wanting to build a security alliance with Canada and Mexico and install advanced weapons systems (capable of reaching US cities in minutes) along Canadia/US and Mexico/US borders. From that perspective it isn't difficult to comprehend why NATO (basically the US) setting up shop on Russia's borders might be perceived as antagonistic to Russia. This isn't rocket surgery.

Tainnor 4y ago

Wow, this is the first time I see a comment section where every top level comment is greyed out.