Is Russia officially an “enemy” of NATO?
I’m thinking there may be language in a treaty somewhere that says they aren’t enemies in the same way it was with the USSR.
46-50, M
PicturesOfABetterTomorrow · 41-45, M
It always has been since the founding in 1947,
The very first Secretary General said as much.
To paraphrase.
NATO was about keeping America in, Germany Down, and Russia out. Which means keep Europe under American control.
Second part was basically about making sure Germany never had full sovereignty again. Still occupied 80 years later so that was accomplished.
And the last point explicitly states Russia was an adversary from day one.
And after the cold war and the destruction of Yugoslavia NATO gave up all pretense of being a defensive alliance and became the American foreign legion existing to destroy enemies of the USA.
So yes. It always has been.
The very first Secretary General said as much.
To paraphrase.
NATO was about keeping America in, Germany Down, and Russia out. Which means keep Europe under American control.
Second part was basically about making sure Germany never had full sovereignty again. Still occupied 80 years later so that was accomplished.
And the last point explicitly states Russia was an adversary from day one.
And after the cold war and the destruction of Yugoslavia NATO gave up all pretense of being a defensive alliance and became the American foreign legion existing to destroy enemies of the USA.
So yes. It always has been.
View 1 more replies »
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
trollslayer · 46-50, M
@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow the difference I see here is that the USA is not fighting this war. So what is the USA’s interest in brokering peace? So whose place is it for the USA to promise concessions to Russia on Ukraine’s behalf, against the protest of allies? What does the USA have to gain here?
PicturesOfABetterTomorrow · 41-45, M
@trollslayer That is the definition of a proxy war. You make others do the fighting and dying for your own ends. Pretending otherwise is just dishonest at this point.
A peace deal is the only way the US has left to salvage their proxy vassal state in Ukraine they created in 2014.
It would hardly be the first time the US forced concessions on a proxy. Hell the US whacked the president of South Korea when he refused to accept the armistice terms.
The US hopes to keep Ukraine as basically a forward operating base to continue hostilities with Russia. They tried it with Georgia in 2008 which was a total failure and this project Ukraine is looking to go the same way.
That being said the US is almost certainly not going to get what they want. They spent nearly 30 years burning all diplomatic bridges with Russia since Bill Clinton. The difference is Russia is no longer run by a permanently drunk alcoholic who didn't even know where he was half the time.
A peace deal is the only way the US has left to salvage their proxy vassal state in Ukraine they created in 2014.
It would hardly be the first time the US forced concessions on a proxy. Hell the US whacked the president of South Korea when he refused to accept the armistice terms.
The US hopes to keep Ukraine as basically a forward operating base to continue hostilities with Russia. They tried it with Georgia in 2008 which was a total failure and this project Ukraine is looking to go the same way.
That being said the US is almost certainly not going to get what they want. They spent nearly 30 years burning all diplomatic bridges with Russia since Bill Clinton. The difference is Russia is no longer run by a permanently drunk alcoholic who didn't even know where he was half the time.
KunsanVeteran · M
I am only familiar with Article 5 of the NATO Charter. For Article 5 to be applicable, an armed attack has to occur on the territory of a NATO member.
Article 5 has only been invoked once—after the 9/11 attacks.
But I doubt that specific “enemy” states or blocks are mentioned but rather attacks or other acts of war.
Article 5 has only been invoked once—after the 9/11 attacks.
But I doubt that specific “enemy” states or blocks are mentioned but rather attacks or other acts of war.
KunsanVeteran · M
@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow I am only responding re: the language in the actual articles, nothing more. I am not disputing what the Secretary-General may or may not have said.
PicturesOfABetterTomorrow · 41-45, M
@KunsanVeteran I am just pointing out the charter has been irrelevant in practice for a very long time. Hell NATO was talking not that long ago about violating it's charter to admit Ukraine at all costs.
PicturesOfABetterTomorrow · 41-45, M
@KunsanVeteran There is also the problem that NATO is at this point in a position where it has multiple member states that have completely contrary foreign policy objectives.
This could be a real shit show in places like Syria that now that it is carved up by various NATO states could actually see NATO members having covert or even overt infighting against each other if it gets bad enough.
This could be a real shit show in places like Syria that now that it is carved up by various NATO states could actually see NATO members having covert or even overt infighting against each other if it gets bad enough.
justanothername · 51-55, M
Yes.
PicturesOfABetterTomorrow · 41-45, M
@dubum Another important point about the NATO situation is since 1991 there are alot of officers in the US army and various European armies that suddenly had to justify the existence of their jobs.
And well American weapons manufacturers need a reason for people to buy their stuff.
An interesting point was also recently made by a military commentator on the weapons company side of things. After the cold war they clearly didn't see a reason conflict between nations being likely again in the near future.
That is why in the west you saw a shift towards stupidly expensive high tech "wonder weapons."
For the weapons companies it solves the problem that you make the same profit on vastly smaller orders.
And it didn't matter till recently that nobody can afford to produce them in large quantities because nobody thought a real war was going to happen anytime soon against peer or near peer nations.
This is also why the B-52 is scheduled to be the first aircraft to serve 100 years in the USAF. Because even the US cannot afford to replace their bomber fleet with the price of modern western weapons systems even as their budget approaches a trillion dollars.
And well American weapons manufacturers need a reason for people to buy their stuff.
An interesting point was also recently made by a military commentator on the weapons company side of things. After the cold war they clearly didn't see a reason conflict between nations being likely again in the near future.
That is why in the west you saw a shift towards stupidly expensive high tech "wonder weapons."
For the weapons companies it solves the problem that you make the same profit on vastly smaller orders.
And it didn't matter till recently that nobody can afford to produce them in large quantities because nobody thought a real war was going to happen anytime soon against peer or near peer nations.
This is also why the B-52 is scheduled to be the first aircraft to serve 100 years in the USAF. Because even the US cannot afford to replace their bomber fleet with the price of modern western weapons systems even as their budget approaches a trillion dollars.
BohemianBabe · M
Not officially, but NATO pretty much only exists to protect Eastern Europe from Russia. Though if the AFD wins next week, it might be the end of NATO.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
NATO doesn't really exist anymore..America no longer has an interest in Europe. Except perhaps as a place where annoying regulation hinders the profits of US corporations. They are working on that