Is NATO evil?

Libya was overreach.

Kosovo was understandable - violence started by Milosevic was destabilizing the Balkans.  Something had to be done.

Europe has known periods of relative peace following spasms of violence in which one power emerged supreme.  The Concert of Europe orchestrated by Metternich followed the Napoleonic Wars and lasted while the Habsburg Empire was all powerful. This was followed by 90 years of increasing conflict culminating in the Second World War.  The Cold War brought mostly peace to Europe.

I think NATO continues to add value as a framework for peace and prosperity to keep the Americans in, the Russians out and the Germans down although I suppose that last part isn't really necessary any more.

So, we can talk about better NATO policy, but anybody arguing for disbanding NATO is arguing for increasing Russian attempts to influence affairs in Europe - attempts that will result in more wars.

Afghanistan was a NATO operation, because the United States is the only NATO member ever to invoke the treaty clause for the other NATO members to come to our aid, when we were attacked.

The prospect of Finland joining NATO is a real blow to Putin. Historically, Russian armies have not fared well against the Finnish. 

GoSlugs said:

The prospect of Finland joining NATO is a real blow to Putin. Historically, Russian armies have not fared well against the Finnish. 

NATO and the U.S. need to focus more energy on managing their relationship with Russia.  Maybe this was already being done, but if not, the Russia relationship needs to be front and center with a long term focus on trying to build some degree of trust.  While I know, for example, that NATO will never attack Russia absent some military first move by Russia, we have our very own Paul and Nan arguing that NATO could attack and God only knows what the Russians believe.  This is one of many reasons for working on building trust.  I realize the current relationship is non-existent, but rebuilding needs to start at some point.

As far as Russia attacking NATO is concerned, I am quite positive that the Russian military have no appetite for any such thing at this point.

I can't imagine building a relationship with Russia or more specifically the Russia under Putin. I realize the practicality of it but just can't see it from a U.S. and European perspective. I clearly recognize how many countries are staying neutral or are actively trading with Russia but how do you walk this back.

As for Finland, I watched Rachel Maddow's coverage of their military defense against Russia, white camouflage and all. Impressive. And as much as I like Ali Velshi, I'm glad she is back.,

tjohn said:

Libya was overreach.

Kosovo was understandable - violence started by Milosevic was destabilizing the Balkans.  Something had to be done.

Europe has known periods of relative peace following spasms of violence in which one power emerged supreme.  The Concert of Europe orchestrated by Metternich followed the Napoleonic Wars and lasted while the Habsburg Empire was all powerful. This was followed by 90 years of increasing conflict culminating in the Second World War.  The Cold War brought mostly peace to Europe.

I think NATO continues to add value as a framework for peace and prosperity to keep the Americans in, the Russians out and the Germans down although I suppose that last part isn't really necessary any more.

So, we can talk about better NATO policy, but anybody arguing for disbanding NATO is arguing for increasing Russian attempts to influence affairs in Europe - attempts that will result in more wars.

from what I can tell, since the dissolution of the USSR, one of NATO's main functions has been to provide a market for huge amounts military hardware.  So from that perspective, NATO hasn't been making the world safer from war, and probably less safe.  As a treaty organization committed to defending its members it still has a function.  But its function as a huge market for the defense industry is a bad thing for the world. 

ml1 said:

from what I can tell, since the dissolution of the USSR, one of NATO's main functions has been to provide a market for huge amounts military hardware.  So from that perspective, NATO hasn't been making the world safer from war, and probably less safe.  As a treaty organization committed to defending its members it still has a function.  But its function as a huge market for the defense industry is a bad thing for the world. 

yeah, I was going to mention that since they're a military organization, how benign can they really be?

still, I think the people who are really against NATO think that they're a far more nefarious organization than perhaps they really are.

drummerboy said:

yeah, I was going to mention that since they're a military organization, how benign can they really be?

still, I think the people who are really against NATO think that they're a far more nefarious organization than perhaps they really are.

NATO spends roughly $1.2Tn a year on military expenditures. Two thirds of that is the U.S.  But the other members are spending almost half a trillion combined. It doesn't by any means justify what Russia has done to Ukraine. But it does explain why NATO might not be considered entirety benign in Russia. 

tjohn said:

GoSlugs said:

The prospect of Finland joining NATO is a real blow to Putin. Historically, Russian armies have not fared well against the Finnish. 

NATO and the U.S. need to focus more energy on managing their relationship with Russia.  Maybe this was already being done, but if not, the Russia relationship needs to be front and center with a long term focus on trying to build some degree of trust.  While I know, for example, that NATO will never attack Russia absent some military first move by Russia, we have our very own Paul and Nan arguing that NATO could attack and God only knows what the Russians believe.  This is one of many reasons for working on building trust.  I realize the current relationship is non-existent, but rebuilding needs to start at some point.

As far as Russia attacking NATO is concerned, I am quite positive that the Russian military have no appetite for any such thing at this point.

I agree, but this is a long-term project. Like Morganna, I have a hard time seeing much success, or even much opening for trying, with Putin. We can look at previous attempts to better engage Russia -- Obama's reset, Germany's economic integration with Russia -- and while we can find faults with them (Obama could have been more respectful of Russia, Germany less naive), I think the major blame for lack of success here lies with Putin. And it's especially hard to see how this happens now, while Ukraine is under attack and the democratic world needs to show solidarity and unity.

As far as NATO in general, I think that the world got very unlucky with having Bush win the presidency. Bush sent US foreign policy in a disastrous direction, most obviously with Iraq but also with NATO. I don't know what he was thinking offering membership to Georgia -- it's too far from the core NATO states to be realistically defended, it just really made no strategic sense. But much of what Bush did made no strategic sense. As a result, the possibilities offered by a post-cold war world were squandered, and to some degree I think NATO got pulled along in this bad direction (how could it not, when its largest and most influential member was). Russia's invasion of Ukraine feels like the end of an era that started in 9/11 though. It's worse in a lot of ways -- major wars in Europe are something I think most of us hoped were a thing of the past -- but it's also clearer than the weird strategic muddle Bush sent us all in.

I agree completely @PVW.  Bush 2 represented the high point of American post war hubris and this caused a lot of damage.  That said, I have also read that the NATO (U.S.) air campaign against Serbia marked a turning point for Putin and a lot of Russians.

tjohn said:

 That said, I have also read that the NATO (U.S.) air campaign against Serbia marked a turning point for Putin and a lot of Russians.

Just because a former KGB goon and his fellow travelers didn't like a campaign to stop genocide doesn't mean it was the wrong thing to do.  

GoSlugs said:

tjohn said:

 That said, I have also read that the NATO (U.S.) air campaign against Serbia marked a turning point for Putin and a lot of Russians.

Just because a former KGB goon and his fellow travelers didn't like a campaign to stop genocide doesn't mean it was the wrong thing to do.  

Without too much effort, we can find quite a few cases where the U.S. treated Russia in a fairly high-handed manner following the Cold War.  So, in my alternative history, I wonder what would have happened if we had treated Russia with more respect.  Doing so would have cost us nothing.  The outcome couldn't possibly have been worse.

tjohn said:

Without too much effort, we can find quite a few cases where the U.S. treated Russia in a fairly high-handed manner following the Cold War.  So, in my alternative history, I wonder what would have happened if we had treated Russia with more respect.  Doing so would have cost us nothing.  The outcome couldn't possibly have been worse.

It might have cost the people of Bosnia quite a bit though. How many more civilians would you have been willing to see murdered just to insure that Vlad didn't get hurt fifis?

I think we should have been more respectful of our language when talking with and about Russia, but unless the result would have been that Yeltsin didn't elevate Putin, I doubt the results would have been substantially different. The objective facts were that Russia was, in fact, in a weakened state after the dissolution of the USSR and no longer a peer power of the US. Putin resented that fact; better language may have made it sting less, but would not have changed that fact, and so would not have changed Putin's goal of reclaiming what he believes to be Russia's rightful place.

It's a bit like how I completely agree that many on the American political left should practice more empathy and respect when talking with and about those on the political right, but I think it's ridiculous to blame liberals for Donald Trump.