Nato, Sweden, Vilnius, Ukraine etc.

[Nay_Sayer]

wall o text counter; 37

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

[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]

[Thumpalumpacus]

[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]

[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]