Forum

...maybe that the intergovernmental military alliance NATO, which was formed in the same decade as the second world war, has become as outdated and useless as the current president of the U.S.? Hey, it's not like our Canadian PM is great by any stretch of the imagination either.

Biden is just immoral filth but Trudeau is diabolical.

I read that twice. Lots said in one line. Sounds like you know a bit more than what CNN has been feeding the masses.

In a way I guess it kind of worked because there was no major European war but one also has to wonder if the entire Warsaw/NATO approach was a modern Central Powers/Triple Entente set up that is usually blamed for WWI and we just got lucky?

I'm someone who would like to see the American military budget cut by something like 75% so I'm no big fan of NATO. Not the least bit concerned about it going away

The proposed U.S. military budget for 2024 is 842 billion dollars. Canada's is 30 billion. The UK, around 74 billion.

Keep going with all the countries, add it up. Then look at the state of the world. We are a mad, mad species. Not entirely hopeless, but in dire need of assistance, for sure.

No question that NATO held the Soviets in check until the collapse of the USSR but its steady absorption of the former republics plus US complicity in the 2014 coup in Ukraine is a major cause of Putin's attack on that country. Control of Ukraine would put NATO only 500 miles from Moscow and Putin felt threatened just as JFK did when missiles were being installed in Cuba. Had Khrushchev not backed down, the plans to invade Cuba would have gone ahead.
The Russian leadership and army have proved to be totally inept in Ukraine and there I believe is a danger that Putin will go nuclear.

I suggest you learn some facts. NATO was set up in 1947 (I think it was, could have been slightly earlier) after World War Two with eight original members. The alliance has always expanded and not just because of the fall of the Warsaw Pact. Those nations became truly independent them (remember what happened to Hungry resulting in Soviet tanks rolling in). The independent countries themselves decided to join NATO; however, to join ALL existing member countries must approve of the country joining. Putin did not invade Ukraine because of NATO. He annex Crimea when Ukraine said that they would not renew lease on Naval bases. Putin invaded Ukraine solely to establish a buffer for transportation of supplies etc from Russia to Crimea. Back to NATO, Article Five has only been invoked once and that was in the War on Terror by Bush. It is Russia’s actions that have xxxxxxxxxx countries to join NATO, the memories of now the Soviets acted is well fresh in that part of the world for example in September 1939 when they spilt Poland in half with Nazi Germany. Putin’s is a dictator who has declared himself president for life. NATO countries are all democracies. As for India, it is not truly a democracy, Mundi has passed many laws restricting the freedom of people who are not Hindu. From a geopolitical perspective however it location makes it a very sort after “Ally”. I’ll finish there because I can’t be fucked writing anymore. Oh, Biden did not say he formed NATO rather he said he had guaranteed the US commitment to the Alliance after Trump had fucked over and still will. Too faced pricks after Article Five was invoked but then he doesn’t respect your military.

Ukraine was invaded for several reasons, some dating back to WW2. The West has forgotten WW2, the Russians never have. Every family in Russia proper probably knows of at least one grandparent, or older family members, that died in WW2 thanks to invasion from the West.

The Bush 1 Administration promised the Russians in 1991 that if they would allow Germany to unite (something that the Soviets were dead set against as far back as the Teheran conference during WW2, when Germany's post-war future was decided) that NATO would not move one inch further east from the eastern border of the united Germany. This promise was never made in writing, but has been verified by Der Spiegel and other news media. And remember, oral promises on the strategic level can be binding. The access to West Berlin durng the postwar years was based on oral promises made by Stalin in 1944.

Meanwhile, President Clinton, and every administration after him (until Trump) broke the promise made to Russia about moving NATO east. They could have worked out a separate security agreement for the former Warsaw pact nations, but instead opted to bring them into NATO, basically giving nuclear armed Russia the finger and taking NATO right to the Russian border.

Then the West, led by the Obama Administration, interfered in Ukrainian elections at a time when ethnic Russians in the Donbass and nearby regions were being discriminated against, and this interference in Ukrainian elections was intended to bring Ukraine into the Western fold, with EU and/or NATO membership being a distinct possibility. Russia, understandably, saw this as a strategic threat.

Remember, they lost 20 Million people, mostly civilians, in WW2. Millions of Russian POW's were starved to death. The Russian people have never forgot this. They have long memories. Most people in the West can't remember anything further back than yesterday's TikTok posting and their understanding of history is lower than the historical understanding held by a box of rocks. It's just fact. People aren't taught history.

NATO is necessary. I think the Russian invasion shows its purpose. That said, the Ukraine invasion may not have happened if the US and other Western governments had not decided to interfere in Ukraine in the 2010's, and suggest it join NATO. As per usual, there are better ways to deal with issues than interfere with elections, make empty threats, provoke a nuclear armed adversary unnecessarily, and make geopolitical moves that are completely devoid of historical knowledge.

I was in favor of major cuts to the U.S. military budget until the wars in Gaza and Ukraine. Now I want the United States to give Israel and Ukraine the xxxxxxxxxxx they need to win.

Wow! A very good summary of why Russia and Ukraine are at war. It nice to know someone else gets their information from other sources besides the MSM.

So, this past week saw the NATO Secretary General advise of a war footing for NATO to be ready for expanded coming war with Russia.


Is this a general sentiment among the populace or just military worries?

What does the SG know that we do not concerning Russia????

Will it happen? An actual NATO war with Russia? They cannot win in Ukraine, Syria, elsewhere and their military incompetence is air, land, and sea as well with their moves in the Baltic. All they have are their submarines.......

Russia are winning on the ground in Ukraine. Ukraine is still losing territory in the east. Look at any legitimate map of the war. The Russians are incrementally taking territory. If the goal of the Ukrainians is to take back all of their territory, they won't be able to make that happen -- at least on their own -- because they are simply losing territory on the ground.

By themselves, Ukraine can not win the war. They did a good job kicking the Russians out of central Ukraine, but once it turned into a modern day WW1, trench war situation they made a few gains, and then started losing. One reason is because they are running out of soldiers. To get all their territory back it would take NATO getting fully involved.

The problem with that possibility is that NATO doesn't presently have the personnel to fight a major war -- the only European NATO country that might be prepared for an all-out fight is Poland. The US doesn't have enough soldiers to fight a major ground war, because of attrition, and recruiting being down for the past several years. We would obviously be expected to provide the majority of the soldiers in a potential Ukraine war because we have a bigger military, and if we got involved fighting on the ground in Ukraine we could probably make some inroads, but fighting a ground war in Ukraine is problematic in the US, both on a practical level, and politically. And when I say 'politically', I mean it would not matter who is in the White House, it would be problematic, period; there is a lot of support in some circles in the US to continue backing the War right now, but if it got to a draft and soldiers dying over there, the war would undoubtedly turn wildly unpopular, even among present day war supporters.

If NATO has a war with Russia, there will be a draft in the US, and maybe other NATO countries. Russia may cut off the EU's energy supply completely, and suppliers of gas like Norway and the US would be hard pressed to make up the shortfall (gas still flows across Ukraine from Russia to the EU). Right now Germany and other central EU countries are facing some economic hardships, partly due to energy costs, some of which can be traced to the war -- Nordstream being shut off (the older section of the pipeline that was shut down when the War started) being one of them. Nordstream 1 was apparently supplying the EU countries with 35% of their gas. The gas supply problem increased the cost by 50% according to the BBC in 2022.

Cutting off ALL gas to the EU, and any ground losses, would make NATO countries question being involved in a ground war in Ukraine. It's not something anyone should want to happen, no matter what one thinks of Putin or Russia. WW3 is good for nobody.

This is why I hope the orange asshat can work out a negotiated peace. The killing needs to stop. It's not good for Ukraine, it's not good for Europe, it's not good for anybody. The Eastern territories can be autonomous republics and some sort of security agreement would be necessary for Ukraine's future. The Ukrainians should be able to live in peace. Perhaps a neutrality could be declared, as Switzerland and Austria presently are.

As for the SG, I have no idea what the NATO SG was implying. I have a feeling that a lot of higher ups in the West have been keeping the people in the dark about a lot of things.