Nato, Sweden, Vilnius, Ukraine etc.

[Nay_Sayer]

wall o text counter; 37

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

[hide]

Ok, let's get back to this. I have to say, while I firmly support Ukraine in its right to self-defense, which it has done heroically, and might have ended up saving large swathes of Europe, Eastern Europe especially, from an invasion (Medvedev has threatened Poland and other countries), I completely disagree with this false Euro-centric perspective, that NATO should not expand into Asia. If it doesn't, it doesn't deserve to win.

Not only in Asia first, but then in the entire Global South, including Oceania, Latin America and Africa. The goal should be to unite all Democratic Countries that respect Human Rights against all Autocratic countries that do not, in order to put pressure on the latter to finally do the same.

It's good to see Stoltenberg seems to get this, since he said: "Underscoring that "security is not regional but global," Mr Stoltenberg thanked the Prime Minister for Japan's strong support to Ukraine." https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_217062.htm

Here's what happened in the Rwandan Genocide, some 1 MN people died, and nearly 500,000 women were raped. NATO stood by and largely did nothing. Pathetic. This is what needs to change. I'm all for supporting Ukraine, yet it is nothing but Racism to deny that same help to say Rwanda.

"Sexual violence was rife, with an estimated 250,000 to 500,000 women raped during the genocide ... the Constitution of Rwanda states that more than 1 million people perished in the genocide" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_genocide They're still trying to minimize it over at Wiki.

Even Boris Johnson called the Global South the "Swing States" of this issue: the West knows it needs Global Support, and right now probably the majority of the world's population do not support it. For that to change, NATO should stop discriminating based on race, and welcome and reach out to Asian Countries first, like Japan, South Korea and India. Otherwise, it is hypocritical to expect Asia to help, if NATO won't also help Asia.

And the same not only for Asia, but anywhere else in the world, including Africa, Latin America and Australia. Some good steps are being made in that direction, like Stoltenberg's outreach to Japan that I quoted. As I said, Commie bootlickers like Macron, to appease the CCP, are opposing it.

NATO membership is not open to countries outside of Europe. Membership is not limited by race but by geography. Article 10.

Boru

[Angrboda]

[hide]

Ok, let's get back to this. I have to say, while I firmly support Ukraine in its right to self-defense, which it has done heroically, and might have ended up saving large swathes of Europe, Eastern Europe especially, from an invasion (Medvedev has threatened Poland and other countries), I completely disagree with this false Euro-centric perspective, that NATO should not expand into Asia. If it doesn't, it doesn't deserve to win.

Not only in Asia first, but then in the entire Global South, including Oceania, Latin America and Africa. The goal should be to unite all Democratic Countries that respect Human Rights against all Autocratic countries that do not, in order to put pressure on the latter to finally do the same.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Ok, let's get back to this. I have to say, while I firmly support Ukraine in its right to self-defense, which it has done heroically, and might have ended up saving large swathes of Europe, Eastern Europe especially, from an invasion (Medvedev has threatened Poland and other countries), I completely disagree with this false Euro-centric perspective, that NATO should not expand into Asia. If it doesn't, it doesn't deserve to win.

There's a non-sequitur in here. Why should NATO, a treaty org designed specifically to protect Europe from a Soviet invasion, broaden its membership to include nations which have few interests there?

Not only in Asia first, but then in the entire Global South, including Oceania, Latin America and Africa. The goal should be to unite all Democratic Countries that respect Human Rights against all Autocratic countries that do not, in order to put pressure on the latter to finally do the same.

I don't mind that. What I think is counterproductive is uniting various countries with obviously different foreign-policy goals into an organization which requires unanimous agreement for coordinated action. You're initiating a logjam.

It's good to see Stoltenberg seems to get this, since he said: "Underscoring that "security is not regional but global," Mr Stoltenberg thanked the Prime Minister for Japan's strong support to Ukraine." https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_217062.htm

Sure, security is global. But said decisions aren't. Different nations have different concerns, and forcing those interests into harmony can be pretty hard when those countries are on the other side of the world.

Here's what happened in the Rwandan Genocide, some 1 MN people died, and nearly 500,000 women were raped. NATO stood by and largely did nothing. Pathetic. This is what needs to change. I'm all for supporting Ukraine, yet it is nothing but Racism to deny that same help to say Rwanda.

How would you get NATO troops in effective numbers into a Central African nation in numbers enough to quell a civil war, and keep them supplied? Be specific. Show your air routes and numbers of supply planes.

Amateurs talk strategy. Pros talk logistics. Let's see what ya got.

Even Boris Johnson called the Global South the "Swing States" of this issue: the West knows it needs Global Support, and right now probably the majority of the world's population do not support it. For that to change, NATO should stop discriminating based on race, and welcome and reach out to Asian Countries first, like Japan, South Korea and India.

You seem to be unaware that NATO, South Korea, and Japan are actually having ongoing discussions about this. Also. you forgot Taiwan ... maybe you don't think they matter, I dunno.

As for ascribing NATO policies to "racism", that sounds like horseshit to me. Your clue, should you be sharp enough to get it, is in the title of the organization. Neither Japan, SK, or India are -- wait for it -- near the North Atlantic. Might you support your claim that NATO's approach is based on "racism", or is this simple PIDOOMA?

Otherwise, it is hypocritical to expect Asia to help, if NATO won't also help Asia.

What help has NATO requested from Asia regarding Ukraine? Shell from SK, mostly. Certainly not forces. So get specific, what is NATO asking? Links to reputable sources, if you would please.

And the same not only for Asia, but anywhere else in the world, including Africa, Latin America and Australia. Some good steps are being made in that direction, like Stoltenberg's outreach to Japan that I quoted. As I said, Commie bootlickers like Macron, to appease the CCP, are opposing it

Proposing NATO as a world shield is silly; it would be a design for its downfall.

That said, it should of course partner with all willing democracies who have something to offer besides nepotism, corruption, and bullshit. We Americans are working with Australia through AUKUS, we've had long-standing security arrangements with both Japan and SK, and are still supporting and supplying Taiwan even as
China shits a brick.

I note as well that you did not address at all the inability of NATO nations outside US, and perhaps UK and Canada, to project power as far afield as Asia. Might you do me the courtesy of addressing this objection, or will you again try to elide it?

[Nishant Xavier]

There's a non-sequitur in here. Why should NATO, a treaty org designed specifically to protect Europe from a Soviet invasion, broaden its membership to include nations which have few interests there?

Because times have changed and NATO should change with it, if it wants to be effective in forestalling and preventing conflicts that can lead to massive human suffering from breaking out in the first place, like the human suffering now tragically unfolding in Ukraine. Beside, Turkey has been a NATO member for a very long time, and Turkiye is essentially an Asian country; the vast majority of it's landmass is in Asia, and its also about 6500 km from the North Atlantic Ocean, so there is historical precedent. And pls note, I am speaking only of Asia-skeptics within NATO. I highly commend Stoltenberg for his good work these last few years, both in Europe and then in outreach to Asia. I condemn only those like Macron who, to appease the CCP, are opposing this logical and necessary expansion of NATO into Asia. South Korea and Japan want to ensure what is happening in Europe today not only does not happen in Europe ever again but also does not happen in Asia tomorrow. Nothing less than preventing a possible World War III by Peace through Strength and Constructive Alliances is at stake. 

Guardian: "Yoon’s attendance reflects a growing interest among members in stepping up their dialogue with countries in the Asia-Pacific.

In an op-ed published on Monday, Jens Stoltenberg, Nato’s secretary general, said: “China, in particular, is watching to see the price Russia pays, or the reward it receives, for its aggression” in Ukraine. Leaders in South Korea and Japan were clearly concerned that what was “happening in Europe today could happen in Asia tomorrow”, he added." https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/j...-to-engage

Not only in Asia first, but then in the entire Global South, including Oceania, Latin America and Africa. The goal should be to unite all Democratic Countries that respect Human Rights against all Autocratic countries that do not, in order to put pressure on the latter to finally do the same.

I don't mind that. What I think is counterproductive is uniting various countries with obviously different foreign-policy goals into an organization which requires unanimous agreement for coordinated action. You're initiating a logjam.

That's a fair point, but the solution is obvious. Instead of 30 countries having veto, which already greatly hampers, slows down the process, and limits effectiveness, something like a 90% majority should suffice. The vast majority of countries would still have to approve, but 1 or 2 dissenting votes would not matter. The point is NATO needs some reforms to adapt to the modern world. NATO is hardly aware of what is going on the Asia-Pacific, not to mention the Middle East and similar regions, which accounts for some of its mistakes in those regions. NATO's combined GDP is in the order of 40 Trillion. It can be a powerful force for good in the world if it recognizes its moral obligations in a spirit of universal brotherhood.

Sure, security is global. But said decisions aren't. Different nations have different concerns, and forcing those interests into harmony can be pretty hard when those countries are on the other side of the world.

European Countries are increasingly waking up to the fact that China under the CCP is likely to be the greatest threat in the next decade after Russia retreats. Strong Alliances in NATO are thus also in NATO's self-interest. 

How would you get NATO troops in effective numbers into a Central African nation in numbers enough to quell a civil war, and keep them supplied? Be specific. Show your air routes and numbers of supply planes.

You should first of all have allied with those African Countries and treated them as peers and equals in every way. If those countries had been welcomed into NATO after the age of colonialism officially ended (though that's practiced in various ways still today, clearly), like Eastern European countries rightly were after the downfall of Communism in the erstwhile Soviet Union, if there had been proper co-ordination between Europe and Africa on these things, that genocide was absolutely preventable or at least could have been severely reduced. How many more have to die before all NATO wakes up to the fact that security has to be global, not regional, as Stoltenberg said?

You seem to be unaware that NATO, South Korea, and Japan are actually having ongoing discussions about this. Also. you forgot Taiwan ... maybe you don't think they matter, I dunno.

I am all in favor of Taiwan's Independence. They should formally vote on it, and officially secede from the CCP in China, as is their democratic right. They won't do this as long as Europe is dithering, getting itself so dependent on China that it can hardly break that off if needed etc.

What help has NATO requested from Asia regarding Ukraine? Shell from SK, mostly.

Not to mention wanting Asian countries to be concerned about Europe's problems, but refusing for Europe's countries to be concerned about Asia's problems. And they should provide similar help to South Korea, and also take its concerns about North Korea, and Japan's on China more seriously.

I note as well that you did not address at all the inability of NATO nations outside US, and perhaps UK and Canada, to project power as far afield as Asia. Might you do me the courtesy of addressing this objection, or will you again try to elide it?

NATO members should keep their commitment to spend 2% of their GDP on Defense. There are both benefits and obligations of being members of the Alliance. Countries with a large population, such as India (which has a larger population than all Europe and North America combined) can also contribute a significant portion of their population as a standing Army: "It is the largest standing army in the world, with 1,237,117 active troops and 960,000 reserve troops." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Army A strong international democratic Army would deter conflicts.

Again, this is all clearly in NATO's own long-term self-interest. It's only those like Macron and appeasers of the CCP who sadly don't want to see it.

[Thumpalumpacus]

---

There's a non-sequitur in here. Why should NATO, a treaty org designed specifically to protect Europe from a Soviet invasion, broaden its membership to include nations which have few interests there?

Because times have changed and NATO should change with it, if it wants to be effective in forestalling and preventing conflicts that can lead to massive human suffering from breaking out in the first place, like the human suffering now tragically unfolding in Ukraine. Beside, Turkey has been a NATO member for a very long time, and Turkiye is essentially an Asian country; the vast majority of it's landmass is in Asia, and its also about 6500 km from the North Atlantic Ocean, so there is historical precedent. And pls note, I am speaking only of Asia-skeptics within NATO. I highly commend Stoltenberg for his good work these last few years, both in Europe and then in outreach to Asia. I condemn only those like Macron who, to appease the CCP, are opposing this logical and necessary expansion of NATO into Asia. South Korea and Japan want to ensure what is happening in Europe today not only does not happen in Europe ever again but also does not happen in Asia tomorrow. Nothing less than preventing a possible World War III by Peace through Strength and Constructive Alliances is at stake. 

Guardian: "Yoon’s attendance reflects a growing interest among members in stepping up their dialogue with countries in the Asia-Pacific.

In an op-ed published on Monday, Jens Stoltenberg, Nato’s secretary general, said: “China, in particular, is watching to see the price Russia pays, or the reward it receives, for its aggression” in Ukraine. Leaders in South Korea and Japan were clearly concerned that what was “happening in Europe today could happen in Asia tomorrow”, he added." https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/j...-to-engage

Not only in Asia first, but then in the entire Global South, including Oceania, Latin America and Africa. The goal should be to unite all Democratic Countries that respect Human Rights against all Autocratic countries that do not, in order to put pressure on the latter to finally do the same.

I don't mind that. What I think is counterproductive is uniting various countries with obviously different foreign-policy goals into an organization which requires unanimous agreement for coordinated action. You're initiating a logjam.

That's a fair point, but the solution is obvious. Instead of 30 countries having veto, which already greatly hampers, slows down the process, and limits effectiveness, something like a 90% majority should suffice. The vast majority of countries would still have to approve, but 1 or 2 dissenting votes would not matter. The point is NATO needs some reforms to adapt to the modern world. NATO is hardly aware of what is going on the Asia-Pacific, not to mention the Middle East and similar regions, which accounts for some of its mistakes in those regions. NATO's combined GDP is in the order of 40 Trillion. It can be a powerful force for good in the world if it recognizes its moral obligations in a spirit of universal brotherhood.

Sure, security is global. But said decisions aren't. Different nations have different concerns, and forcing those interests into harmony can be pretty hard when those countries are on the other side of the world.

European Countries are increasingly waking up to the fact that China under the CCP is likely to be the greatest threat in the next decade after Russia retreats. Strong Alliances in NATO are thus also in NATO's self-interest. 

How would you get NATO troops in effective numbers into a Central African nation in numbers enough to quell a civil war, and keep them supplied? Be specific. Show your air routes and numbers of supply planes.

You should first of all have allied with those African Countries and treated them as peers and equals in every way. If those countries had been welcomed into NATO after the age of colonialism officially ended (though that's practiced in various ways still today, clearly), like Eastern European countries rightly were after the downfall of Communism in the erstwhile Soviet Union, if there had been proper co-ordination between Europe and Africa on these things, that genocide was absolutely preventable or at least could have been severely reduced. How many more have to die before all NATO wakes up to the fact that security has to be global, not regional, as Stoltenberg said?

You seem to be unaware that NATO, South Korea, and Japan are actually having ongoing discussions about this. Also. you forgot Taiwan ... maybe you don't think they matter, I dunno.

I am all in favor of Taiwan's Independence. They should formally vote on it, and officially secede from the CCP in China, as is their democratic right. They won't do this as long as Europe is dithering, getting itself so dependent on China that it can hardly break that off if needed etc.

What help has NATO requested from Asia regarding Ukraine? Shell from SK, mostly.

Not to mention wanting Asian countries to be concerned about Europe's problems, but refusing for Europe's countries to be concerned about Asia's problems. And they should provide similar help to South Korea, and also take its concerns about North Korea, and Japan's on China more seriously.

I note as well that you did not address at all the inability of NATO nations outside US, and perhaps UK and Canada, to project power as far afield as Asia. Might you do me the courtesy of addressing this objection, or will you again try to elide it?

NATO members should keep their commitment to spend 2% of their GDP on Defense. There are both benefits and obligations of being members of the Alliance. Countries with a large population, such as India (which has a larger population than all Europe and North America combined) can also contribute a significant portion of their population as a standing Army: "It is the largest standing army in the world, with 1,237,117 active troops and 960,000 reserve troops." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Army A strong international democratic Army would deter conflicts.

Again, this is all clearly in NATO's own long-term self-interest. It's only those like Macron and appeasers of the CCP who sadly don't want to see it.

---

I'm headed off to bed, but I'll give my reply in the next day or so.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

A somewhat more workable approach (as opposed to the illegality and impracticality of admitting countries like the DRC and Japan into NATO) might be to foster the development of regional defense alliances, possibly modelled on the NATO charter.

While this would still have significant obstacles to overcome - chiefly economic and political -, it would be far more practical than expecting New Zealand to declare war on Russia for invading Poland.

Boru

[Thumpalumpacus]

Because times have changed and NATO should change with it, if it wants to be effective in forestalling and preventing conflicts that can lead to massive human suffering from breaking out in the first place, like the human suffering now tragically unfolding in Ukraine. Beside, Turkey has been a NATO member for a very long time, and Turkiye is essentially an Asian country; the vast majority of it's landmass is in Asia, and its also about 6500 km from the North Atlantic Ocean, so there is historical precedent.

Controlling the Mediterranean is vital to European security, and that naturally requires Turkish involvement. I think you're overestimating the distance, too, by about 50%. (Istanbul -- Gibraltar is about 4000 km).

And pls note, I am speaking only of Asia-skeptics within NATO. I highly commend Stoltenberg for his good work these last few years, both in Europe and then in outreach to Asia. I condemn only those like Macron who, to appease the CCP, are opposing this logical and necessary expansion of NATO into Asia. South Korea and Japan want to ensure what is happening in Europe today not only does not happen in Europe ever again but also does not happen in Asia tomorrow. Nothing less than preventing a possible World War III by Peace through Strength and Constructive Alliances is at stake. 

No argument with this part.

Guardian: "Yoon’s attendance reflects a growing interest among members in stepping up their dialogue with countries in the Asia-Pacific.

In an op-ed published on Monday, Jens Stoltenberg, Nato’s secretary general, said: “China, in particular, is watching to see the price Russia pays, or the reward it receives, for its aggression” in Ukraine. Leaders in South Korea and Japan were clearly concerned that what was “happening in Europe today could happen in Asia tomorrow”, he added." https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/j...-to-engage

That is not an argument for expanding NATO into Asia.

Not only in Asia first, but then in the entire Global South, including Oceania, Latin America and Africa. The goal should be to unite all Democratic Countries that respect Human Rights against all Autocratic countries that do not, in order to put pressure on the latter to finally do the same.

Bringing all those nations into NATO would scatter its focus and undermine its unity, because these nations have differing and sometimes conflicting interests.

That's a fair point, but the solution is obvious. Instead of 30 countries having veto, which already greatly hampers, slows down the process, and limits effectiveness, something like a 90% majority should suffice. The vast majority of countries would still have to approve, but 1 or 2 dissenting votes would not matter.

This would be unworkable, because you'd either force a nation to go to war against its will, or else expose fissures within NATO that any opponent could exploit.

 The point is NATO needs some reforms to adapt to the modern world. NATO is hardly aware of what is going on the Asia-Pacific, not to mention the Middle East and similar regions, which accounts for some of its mistakes in those regions.

You think NATO is "hardly aware" of events in Asia? Where do you get this idea from? And what mistakes has NATO made in that are? Be specific.

NATO's combined GDP is in the order of 40 Trillion. It can be a powerful force for good in the world if it recognizes its moral obligations in a spirit of universal brotherhood.

NATO is not a charitable organization, it is a mutual-security alliance.

European Countries are increasingly waking up to the fact that China under the CCP is likely to be the greatest threat in the next decade after Russia retreats. Strong Alliances in NATO are thus also in NATO's self-interest. 

NATO can be allied to non-NATO nations without inducting those allies into NATO.

You should first of all have allied with those African Countries and treated them as peers and equals in every way.

Even when they aren't peers? When they're ruled by juntas and not committed to human rights themselves?

If those countries had been welcomed into NATO after the age of colonialism officially ended (though that's practiced in various ways still today, clearly), like Eastern European countries rightly were after the downfall of Communism in the erstwhile Soviet Union, if there had been proper co-ordination between Europe and Africa on these things, that genocide was absolutely preventable or at least could have been severely reduced. How many more have to die before all NATO wakes up to the fact that security has to be global, not regional, as Stoltenberg said?

Many of those countries wanted absolutely nothing to do with their former colonial masters, which seriously undermines your thinking here.

I am all in favor of Taiwan's Independence. They should formally vote on it, and officially secede from the CCP in China, as is their democratic right. They won't do this as long as Europe is dithering, getting itself so dependent on China that it can hardly break that off if needed etc.

Nothing Europe does can make Taiwanese independence without a war possible. Taiwan is not awaiting European action before declaring independence. They are trying to not get invaded.

Not to mention wanting Asian countries to be concerned about Europe's problems, but refusing for Europe's countries to be concerned about Asia's problems.

You think Europe isn't concerned about events in Asia? What do you base this claim on? Got any good articles supporting this PoV?

 

And they should provide similar help to South Korea, and also take its concerns about North Korea, and Japan's on China more seriously.

No European power can project power that far afield. And in case you haven't noticed, the main power in NATO -- the US -- is formally allied to both SK and Japan, and bound by treaty to their defense. We also sell arms to Taiwan, for that matter.

NATO members should keep their commitment to spend 2% of their GDP on Defense. There are both benefits and obligations of being members of the Alliance. Countries with a large population, such as India (which has a larger population than all Europe and North America combined) can also contribute a significant portion of their population as a standing Army: "It is the largest standing army in the world, with 1,237,117 active troops and 960,000 reserve troops." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Army A strong international democratic Army would deter conflicts.

None of that addresses my point about power projection from European powers.

Again, this is all clearly in NATO's own long-term self-interest. It's only those like Macron and appeasers of the CCP who sadly don't want to see it.

Macron's a fool -- but he is not NATO. He's the leader of one member nation. Take care not to confuse the two.

[Deesse23]

Because times have changed and NATO should change with it, if it wants to be effective in forestalling and preventing conflicts that can lead to massive human suffering from breaking out in the first place, like the human suffering now tragically unfolding in Ukraine. Beside, Turkey has been a NATO member for a very long time, and Turkiye is essentially an Asian country; the vast majority of it's landmass is in Asia, and its also about 6500 km from the North Atlantic Ocean, so there is historical precedent.

Controlling the Mediterranean is vital to European security, and that naturally requires Turkish involvement. I think you're overestimating the distance, too, by about 50%. (Istanbul -- Gibraltar is about 4000 km).

He is overestimating by ca. 100% actually.
Istanbul-Gibraltar is actually 3000km.
Less than 3000 from the west coast of Turkey, 4000km from Gibraltar to the border to Iran.
6500km west of Ankara is....the fooking middle of the North Atlantic.

[Nishant Xavier]

Thump: Ok, let's put it this way: China recently denied the Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity of some Post-Communist Eastern European Baltic States. This caused a huge uproar and rightly so, for in principle it justified an invasion of those Countries; and later, with this good diplomatic pressure on the CCP, they acknowledged the sovereignty of those countries. You probably know this, but here's the link: https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Interna...iet-states Also, these Eastern European Countries get the problems inherent in the Sino-Soviet Alliance far better than some Western European countries, perhaps because of their proximity to the threat. UK is an exception, but France and Germany are examples. They clearly understood their security was under threat as long as the CCP thought this way, even more problematic than the obvious support the CCP has been giving Thug Putin in this war from the very beginning.

Not going to get into detailed arguments on this point, but will only say this: if China and Russia unite, and China mobilizes but 1% of its population only to fight, Europe's going to have no chance. That's why, to prevent that, it would be wise for Europe to welcome other Asian Countries into the Alliance beside Turkey: Japan, South Korea, India and the Philippines in particular. NATO could continue to be a defensive Alliance just as it is now.

If some reforms are needed, those should be implemented. It's fine if NATO doesn't want to do this also, but then it's unrealistic, to say the least, to expect Global South Countries to support NATO in this conflict, which NATO certainly will need in the long run. They'll just see it as a local European thing they need no more be concerned about than you are about a Rwanda conflict. As of right now, you should know, "EIU Report: 70% of Global Population Is Neutral or Supportive of Russia, Not the West". https://www.russia-briefing.com/news/eiu...west.html/ It isn't because people can't clearly see here that Russia is the invader; of course they can. It's the same I-don't-careism false philosophy, by which some say we shouldn't care what happens beyond our borders, others beyond a race, others beyond some region. Just as Gandhi said an eye for an eye ends by making the whole world blind, so also I-don't-careism philosophy leads to a world where no one cares for anyone else, and that's hardly a Good World anyone would want to live in. It's fine if NATO does not want to welcome Asian Countries, but it would clearly be not only be enlightened and smart to do so, but also in NATO's own long term self-interest.