If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   You know, it was just the other day that I was saying "Boy, I wish we had a European war to fight. I miss the good ol' days" Well, the NATO chief has the same feelings   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 61
    More: Scary, NATO, Eastern Europe, United States, Europe, DigitalGlobe, Anthony Cordesman, combat readiness, East Ukraine  
•       •       •

5887 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Apr 2014 at 2:29 PM (16 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



61 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-10 07:01:40 PM

Grahor: I'm not talking about current situation. Currently Russia is in no position to threaten Baltics, nor it shows any inclination to do so. Any such action may happen only in a different situation.

For example, a necessary prerequisite for any attack on Baltics would be compete integration of Byelorussia as part of Russia, significant extension of trade connections of Russia with China and consequent improvement of economic situation in Russia, serious militarization and farther fascification of Russia. Only if Russia would feel that it can allow _complete_ isolation from the West (including complete cessation of the West purchasing any oil and gas from Russia), any attack on Baltics is possible.

My described situation is only possible if the world situation would change in this way. There is pretty much zero chance of Russia attacking Baltics at all without this change.


I think you are too smart to honestly expect anyone who has been following your posts to have known that you have been responding under the auspices of the aforementioned scenario.
 
2014-04-10 07:12:33 PM

hardinparamedic: mcreadyblue: I guess it's war then, too bad we are bound by unchangeable treaties.

It's WWI all over again.

You really should know what you're talking about before you make sarcastic quips. Article 5, the protection of NATO member states by the whole from aggression, IS the North Atlantic Treaty. It is basically what the entire organization was founded upon.

It's not "World War I", unless you count Russia as the Germans invading everyone around them.


It's not even close to WWI -- those were conflicting treaties and not designed around unity of purpose.  It was more "If one country attacks another, feel free to dogpile on your hated enemy".

mcreadyblue: I applaud your bravery in being amongst the first troops to bravely charge into the Russian lines.

You courage will long be remembered.

No one is talking about invading Russia, you hack.


The premise of "Chickenhawk" is absurd anyway.


Grahor: Unthinkable, once. And yet entirely reasonable and acceptable, today. Rules change. Something unthinkable becomes entirely acceptable, completely reasonable.

What you're suggesting is nothing less than the dissolution of NATO and outright appeasement of an aggressive power to keep form going to war. Remind me, Neville, how well that's worked out historically? And for an added bonus, remind me how many lives it would have saved had you stood up to that power and outright smacked them down rather than appeasing them?


Apparently, the dissolution of NATO is already reasonable in his mind.
 
Al!
2014-04-10 08:20:17 PM

Grahor: Marmilman: Yeah no kidding. I think the only person trotting out that gem is Grahor.

Yes, and my reasons are:

1) Latvia will be overwhelmed in less than 8 hours, before NATO will even be able to move troops to its borders. When the West will learn about it, Russian troops would be digging in and establishing positions all through Latvia, including all the major cities.
2) Russia will have a lot of very good excuses. They are there only to provide some protection, until proper elections-referendums would be held, and so on. Russia will not, of course, attack unless such excuses are plausible.
3) Latvian government would ask for calmness and peaceful resolution, declare that they are quitting NATO and absolving NATO from necessity to follow through on agreements, and so on. For a number of reasons. One of them is because you do what you are told to do in such situation.
4) Poland and other East European government would be terrified beyond measure not only by the fact that Russia have attacked, by also by the understanding that actual fighting is going to happen on their territories. 2000 kilometers of the Eastern European border, on which Russian troops are massing out, while Russia is screaming that they aren't looking for war, in fact they want only peace, and will not make another step, if only provocations from NATO would not force its hand.

USA&Europe doesn't have enough troops on hand to provide security for the whole border; they can't attack just yet, right? And if they'll attack, they can't just move infantry in, fighting building-after-building, like modern day Stalingrad, right? And bombing the cities will destroy the same population they are trying to save, right? And Stalingrad scenario isn't merciful to civilians, either. And all the Eastern European states plead for providing their security first. So they'll hesitate.

Oh, and have I mentioned that all Russian nuclear subs are somewhere in positions around the US? Just in case, you know. Nobody is g ...


Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty states, in its entirety:

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.


Any armed incursion upon a NATO member nations sovereign territory would automatically trigger reaction by the alliance as a whole, whether the invaded nation asked for help or not.  The nature of the alliance allows for situations where the central government of allied nations may not be the legal government, or where the government is under duress.
 
2014-04-10 08:52:18 PM

Al!: Any armed incursion upon a NATO member nations sovereign territory would automatically trigger reaction by the alliance as a whole, whether the invaded nation asked for help or not. The nature of the alliance allows for situations where the central government of allied nations may not be the legal government, or where the government is under duress.


Bears repeating. It doesn't matter whether Russia installs a puppet government that declares "we're all fine, thank you!", or whatever other lies Russia and its shills tell. An attack on any NATO member is an attack on all of them, end of story.
 
2014-04-10 09:49:51 PM
Grahor:

Oh, and have I mentioned that all Russian nuclear subs are somewhere in positions around the US? Just in case, you know. ... Some US Navy attack subs need some torpedo practice?


/Com, Sonar - Crazy Ivan!
 
2014-04-10 11:10:47 PM

Al!: Grahor: Marmilman: Yeah no kidding. I think the only person trotting out that gem is Grahor.

Yes, and my reasons are:

1) Latvia will be overwhelmed in less than 8 hours, before NATO will even be able to move troops to its borders. When the West will learn about it, Russian troops would be digging in and establishing positions all through Latvia, including all the major cities.
2) Russia will have a lot of very good excuses. They are there only to provide some protection, until proper elections-referendums would be held, and so on. Russia will not, of course, attack unless such excuses are plausible.
3) Latvian government would ask for calmness and peaceful resolution, declare that they are quitting NATO and absolving NATO from necessity to follow through on agreements, and so on. For a number of reasons. One of them is because you do what you are told to do in such situation.
4) Poland and other East European government would be terrified beyond measure not only by the fact that Russia have attacked, by also by the understanding that actual fighting is going to happen on their territories. 2000 kilometers of the Eastern European border, on which Russian troops are massing out, while Russia is screaming that they aren't looking for war, in fact they want only peace, and will not make another step, if only provocations from NATO would not force its hand.

USA&Europe doesn't have enough troops on hand to provide security for the whole border; they can't attack just yet, right? And if they'll attack, they can't just move infantry in, fighting building-after-building, like modern day Stalingrad, right? And bombing the cities will destroy the same population they are trying to save, right? And Stalingrad scenario isn't merciful to civilians, either. And all the Eastern European states plead for providing their security first. So they'll hesitate.

Oh, and have I mentioned that all Russian nuclear subs are somewhere in positions around the US? Just in case, you know. Nob ...




Sounds like a perfectly good reason to start WWIII.

If we've all got to die, Article 5 sounds like a good enough reason to me.

USA!
USA!
USA!
 
2014-04-11 01:19:35 AM

TedCruz'sCrazyDad: Sounds like a perfectly good reason to start WWIII.


Your name is apt.
 
2014-04-11 04:44:46 AM

Marmilman: I think you are too smart to honestly expect anyone who has been following your posts to have known that you have been responding under the auspices of the aforementioned scenario.


I have posted a number of times, that the only way Russia would attack Baltics is if Byelorussia would already be joined in, and Russia would be ready for all-out war. That, obviously, includes "ready to not sell oil to Europe anymore".

I have specifically posted, in the very post I've described my scenario, that it is meant for a different situation; in today's situation it is inconceivable for Russia to attack Baltics.
 
2014-04-11 04:49:14 AM

elchupacabra: Apparently, the dissolution of NATO is already reasonable in his mind.


*shrug* I don't believe that the dissolution of NATO would happen over an attack on Baltics. Where there is a will, there is a way. And I believe that there is a whole lot of will in NATO not to fight Russia for Baltics.
 
2014-04-11 11:38:50 AM

Grahor: *shrug* I don't believe that the dissolution of NATO would happen over an attack on Baltics. Where there is a will, there is a way. And I believe that there is a whole lot of will in NATO not to fight Russia for Baltics.


Article Five doesn't give NATO an option to pick and choose what member countries they decide to protect should someone in the Kremlin get all uppity and decide to get some Lebensraum in Eastern Europe. Appeasement doesn't work, and it never has - it only leads to bloodier conflicts. An attack on one NATO country is an attack on them all - this is clearly stated. Unity of purpose is one of the sole reasons that the treaty exists.

Again. What you're suggesting is the outright dissolution of NATO, because it will show that the United States is too weak or too uninterested in holding up their part of the NATO Treaty to be a part of it.
 
Al!
2014-04-11 07:46:54 PM

TedCruz'sCrazyDad: Sounds like a perfectly good reason to start WWIII.

If we've all got to die, Article 5 sounds like a good enough reason to me.

USA!
USA!
USA!


Right.  I can clearly see you don't understand the nature of a defensive alliance.  "Starting" WWIII would imply that any defensive actions taken would be the initial actions, which is the exact opposite of what a "response" is.  By the very treaty I quoted, no action will be taken unless a member nation is attacked.  Maybe you should look to the aggressors if you seek the prevention of war, because repulsing an invasion is the very reason the alliance exists, and would only be following the lead of the aggressors.  Backing out of our obligations because pussies are scared of standing up for what's right (namely, our honest and well thought-out word that we would help defend any member nations against invasion) would spell the end of modern civiliaztion.  I would argue vehemently that the North Atlantic Treaty we signed as a nation has as much weight and validity as our constitution.
 
Displayed 11 of 61 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report