Olaf Scholz: the NATO will not be part of the Ukrainian War

[Stevicus]

The timing of a truism that applies to all the
parties involved, including Nazi Germany,
Russia, USA, etc, suggests to me a claim of
equivalence & exculpation for Russia.
Your friendliness towards Soviet socialism
comports with this.
Otherwise, why state a particularly obvious
truism at that point in a discussion, eh.

Just for the record, you have no factual refutation or disagreement with anything I wrote. All I see here is an attempt at McCarthyite goading.

Hitler & Stalin sound so reasonable
when you put it that way.

Maybe they sound reasonable to you. I was merely pointing out what is accepted as common knowledge by those who know the history of the period.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not in our darkest hours......... they did not exist at that time.

Look, it was great that the USA came in to the war......eventually.

And it was great that England
was attacking Germany instead
of Ameristan...eventually.

 

[Revoltingest]

Just for the record, you have no factual refutation or disagreement with anything I wrote.

Exactly!
Because what you wrote said
nothing directly. I addressed
what I read between the lines.

 

[Stevicus]

It may or may not be rubbish, but I wouldn't be pushing it as 'Biden's rubbish'.
1. Ukraine isn't a NATO country, so talk of invading 'other' NATO countries is not really accurate.
2. Non-NATO countries have become more likely to join NATO because of Putin's actions, because of the risk of being a non-NATO country seen as a possible future NATO partner (as Ukraine was). Better to either denounce NATO entirely, or join NATO and have the protection of Article 5 guarantees.

I think it's a chicken-egg type question: Did NATO expand in the 1990s and early 2000s because they genuinely thought Russia was a threat then, or did the NATO expansion itself become a self-fulfilling prophecy and turn Russia into a threat because they saw it as provocative?

 

[Estro Felino]

I think it's a chicken-egg type question: Did NATO expand in the 1990s and early 2000s because they genuinely thought Russia was a threat then, or did the NATO expansion itself become a self-fulfilling prophecy and turn Russia into a threat because they saw it as provocative?

In my opinion, the real question is:
- Did NATO expand eastwards to the Russian borders, because the NATO was created to antagonize, isolate and eventually conquer Russia?

I wouldn't call it a "self-fulfilling prophecy".
Olaf Scholz's speech is very clear: Europe works for peace and works through peace and diplomacy. The European ways.

But it's undeniable that the warlike spirit is boiling overseas...there are too many people calling for war in the US.

 

[Stevicus]

Exactly!
Because what you wrote said
nothing directly. I addressed
what I read between the lines.

Yes, I know. All because of my "friendliness" towards the idea of people getting a fair day's wage for a fair day's work. So, you "read between the lines" and conclude that it means I'm consorting with Sith Lords.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, I know. All because of my "friendliness" towards the idea of people getting a fair day's wage for a fair day's work. So, you "read between the lines" and conclude that it means I'm consorting with Sith Lords.

I speculate that your posts use truisms & general
platitudes because they create the impression
you want, but it's unassailable because no
direct meaning can be pinned down.

 

[Stevicus]

In my opinion, the real question is:
- Did NATO expand eastwards to the Russian borders, because the NATO was created to antagonize, isolate and eventually conquer Russia?

I wouldn't call it a "self-fulfilling prophecy".
Olaf Scholz's speech is very clear: Europe works for peace and works through peace and diplomacy. The European ways.

But it's undeniable that the warlike spirit is boiling overseas...there are too many people calling for war in the US.

I hope they can find a peaceful and diplomatic solution to this.

Originally, NATO was created in the aftermath of WW2, which came out of the aftermath of WW1 - back when America's role in global affairs was much smaller than it is now.

I don't think America ever wanted to conquer Russia. Even some of the most ardent expansionists in U.S. history have never mentioned Russia - and US expansionism has mainly focused on Latin America and the Pacific Rim, historically - and shifted towards the Middle East in more recent times. From that perspective (which was aligned with the perspective of Britain and France), Russia was seen as a potential nemesis in that their possible expansion could threaten Western holdings along the southern tier of Asia and the Middle East.

Whether or not their fears of Russian and/or Soviet expansion were well-founded was never really fully explored or objectively examined, as it served as a brilliant pretext for the US establishing a presence in multiple countries around the world, along with alliances such as CENTO and SEATO which were the Middle East's and Southeast Asia's version of NATO. Iran under the Shah, for example, was part of CENTO. South Vietnam was part of SEATO.

I think the reality is that some U.S. politicians and pundits wanted to puff up and exaggerate the Soviet threat and turn them into the world's "boogieman" for their own agenda. For one thing, it justified an immense increase in peacetime military spending, far more than we had ever seen in our history prior to WW2. It gave America a perfect, built-in excuse for any kind of interference or intervention in the world, from Guatemala, Chile, Iran, Vietnam - just to name a few places. I don't think the U.S. ever wanted to conquer Russia, nor do I think that they ever really believed that the USSR was really quite so dangerous or threatening as they made them out to be in the eyes of the public.

It was also a cornerstone in the Red Scare theology that many of us grew up with during the Cold War era. It also served as a perfect, built-in excuse for the government to persecute people they thought were "communists" or "sympathizers," such as Civil Rights leaders like MLK.

I'm not blind to the dangers of this world, and I do agree, as an American citizen, that we do need to maintain awareness, vigilance, and preparedness when it comes to global affairs and any potential threats we might face. But by the same token, we shouldn't go out looking for a fight, nor should we believe that America is the only country in the world with any sense of wisdom, honor, or responsibility. Above all, we have to keep our own insanity, paranoia, and rage under control.

 

[Stevicus]

I speculate that your posts use truisms & general
platitudes because they create the impression
you want, but it's unassailable because no
direct meaning can be pinned down.

Even if that were the case, one struggles to find how it has any relevance or issue to the discussion at hand.

What were trying to "pin down," anyway? You seem to be making strong insinuations that I'm siding with Russia against America. This has never been true, but I am an American citizen who believes that our national government should act honorably, fairly, and justly in its relations with the outside world. Of course, we should consider our own interests and act in what is best along those lines, which means maintaining vigilance, preparedness, and awareness of any potential threats.

I think we need to look at these things (particularly the historical background) with a certain degree of objectivity and cool-headed rationality - which are hardly the realm of rage-fueled sanctimony or complaints about "excusing Russia for supporting Germany."

So, for America's sake, I would hope that we can maintain cool heads and clear minds. Even if it comes to a confrontation - or if we wish to avoid a confrontation - then we need to think in more realistic and practical terms.

 

[Revoltingest]

Even if that were the case, one struggles to find how it has any relevance or issue to the discussion at hand.

If you broach a subject.
Expect a response.
If you object to responses,
don't broach the subject.
If you find it all irrelevant,
don't continue objecting.

 

[Stevicus]

If you broach a subject.
Expect a response.
If you object to responses,
don't broach the subject.
If you find it all irrelevant,
don't continue objecting.

Gee, talk about truisms and general platitudes.

Oh well. Spring is almost here. Spring Training is underway and it will soon be baseball season.

 

[Revoltingest]

Gee, talk about truisms and general platitudes.

My advice very specifically
addressed your problem.

 

[oldbadger]

And it was great that England
was attacking Germany instead
of Ameristan...eventually.

Oh no ! That old chestnut.

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh no ! That old chestnut.

You went back 1 century.
I took it 1 & 2 further.
We repaid Limey aggression with assistance.
Ameristan is a saint, eh.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I think it's a chicken-egg type question: Did NATO expand in the 1990s and early 2000s because they genuinely thought Russia was a threat then, or did the NATO expansion itself become a self-fulfilling prophecy and turn Russia into a threat because they saw it as provocative?

I think there is a third path, and one which strikes me as more compelling. Did nations outside of NATO see membership of NATO as proof against threats?
It's a subtle difference, but it speaks to internal pressure within NATO to expand, vs external pressure from outside of NATO to expand.
Incidentally, I suspect this isn't a simple matter of choosing the truth. All these factors influenced reality.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

In my opinion, the real question is:
- Did NATO expand eastwards to the Russian borders, because the NATO was created to antagonize, isolate and eventually conquer Russia?

I wouldn't call it a "self-fulfilling prophecy".
Olaf Scholz's speech is very clear: Europe works for peace and works through peace and diplomacy. The European ways.

But it's undeniable that the warlike spirit is boiling overseas...there are too many people calling for war in the US.

I'm a little unsure how to respond to this. It's almost a parody position.
Do you see the Treaty of Dunkirk as an aggressive act of antagonism on Russia?

 

[Stevicus]

I think there is a third path, and one which strikes me as more compelling. Did nations outside of NATO see membership of NATO as proof against threats?
It's a subtle difference, but it speaks to internal pressure within NATO to expand, vs external pressure from outside of NATO to expand.
Incidentally, I suspect this isn't a simple matter of choosing the truth. All these factors influenced reality.

I would say a lot of it goes back to the time when NATO was set up to begin with - and the pre-existing circumstances and events which led up to its creation. I think it could be argued that the creation of NATO could have prevented any possible Soviet threat, if they ever did have any plans or designs on Western Europe.

I think the expansion was ostensibly the result of former Warsaw Pact states and former Soviet Republics fearing that they could again fall under the thumb of some reconstituted "Russian Empire" of sorts, if such a thing ever did come to pass.

As a defensive alliance, NATO only really seems relevant as such in the event of a Russian attack on the nations of central of western Europe. We have separate treaties regarding our Pacific alliances, so if China does something aggressive against an ally, it may not directly involve NATO. Other hot spots of the world aren't really in NATO's region, so it seems the only reason for having it and/or expanding it is simply due to fear of Russian aggression.

I suppose NATO could be expanded and transformed into a global alliance which would encompass our allies in the Pacific Rim, Middle East, Latin America, in addition to Europe and North America. I've heard some talk about a Pacific version of NATO. I think this would prevent any possible attack, but it could still remain a barrier to better foreign relations and a more stable world.

If there is any kind of potential global conflict or struggle, I'm wondering how it would be characterized. It's not really ideological anymore, not like it was between socialism and capitalism, since capitalism has won out in the battle for hearts and minds (at least for the time being). It seems more of a growing nationalistic struggle amid a rising tide of nationalism, and that is somewhat disconcerting. One hears echoes of it in some European countries, and even in America, we have the "America Firsters" making a lot of noise.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

As a defensive alliance, NATO only really seems relevant as such in the event of a Russian attack on the nations of central of western Europe. We have separate treaties regarding our Pacific alliances, so if China does something aggressive against an ally, it may not directly involve NATO. Other hot spots of the world aren't really in NATO's region, so it seems the only reason for having it and/or expanding it is simply due to fear of Russian aggression.

I suppose NATO could be expanded and transformed into a global alliance which would encompass our allies in the Pacific Rim, Middle East, Latin America, in addition to Europe and North America. I've heard some talk about a Pacific version of NATO. I think this would prevent any possible attack, but it could still remain a barrier to better foreign relations and a more stable world.

Just an FYI, really, but there are four Asian-Pac nations that have been included in NATO meetings (whilst not being NATO members).
These are the Asia-Pacific Four partners (Australia, New Zealand, Japan and South Korea).
We (Australia) also have the AUKUS alliance with the US and the UK which encompasses access to technology in particular (including access to nuclear subs, and sharing of cyber technology and information).
We have a number of treaties with the US (some including other parties) - Pine Gap, Force Posture, Five Eyes, ANZUS, Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, etc

Without going into boring detail, if the US is drawn into a war...or initiates one....we are not compelled to act. But the scope of the agreements and the general relationship between the states means we are likely to act. We have supported the Ukraine efforts, as a simple example of Australian action (limited) in theatres of war that don't directly impact us. Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. So, a single global alliance? Seems unlikely. But overlapping strategic agreements certainly seems likely, and Australia and Japan in particular have multiple agreements with the US, whilst India, South Korea and New Zealand are also directly enmeshed.

Other nations, such as Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore are more indirectly connected, with a higher likelihood of non action, in my estimation.

 

[Stevicus]

Just an FYI, really, but there are four Asian-Pac nations that have been included in NATO meetings (whilst not being NATO members).
These are the Asia-Pacific Four partners (Australia, New Zealand, Japan and South Korea).
We (Australia) also have the AUKUS alliance with the US and the UK which encompasses access to technology in particular (including access to nuclear subs, and sharing of cyber technology and information).
We have a number of treaties with the US (some including other parties) - Pine Gap, Force Posture, Five Eyes, ANZUS, Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, etc

Without going into boring detail, if the US is drawn into a war...or initiates one....we are not compelled to act. But the scope of the agreements and the general relationship between the states means we are likely to act. We have supported the Ukraine efforts, as a simple example of Australian action (limited) in theatres of war that don't directly impact us. Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. So, a single global alliance? Seems unlikely. But overlapping strategic agreements certainly seems likely, and Australia and Japan in particular have multiple agreements with the US, whilst India, South Korea and New Zealand are also directly enmeshed.

Other nations, such as Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore are more indirectly connected, with a higher likelihood of non action, in my estimation.

There are so many intricate pieces of the puzzle, so many different wild cards and random elements out there - it's hard to say what direction any of these countries is going to take.

India, for example, is hard to gauge at this point, since they don't seem to be fully on board with the West's antipathy towards Russia, and they also seem to have difficulties with Pakistan and China. Even Mexico doesn't seem all that enthused about the U.S. position these days, and our relationship with that country goes back a ways - not all of it pleasant. China could make inroads into Latin America, which is at America's soft underbelly.

That's the risk we run if we go in a bit too overamped about these things. Those who aren't really quite on board with it could react in ways which are unpredictable and could work against us in the long run.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

There are so many intricate pieces of the puzzle, so many different wild cards and random elements out there - it's hard to say what direction any of these countries is going to take.

India, for example, is hard to gauge at this point, since they don't seem to be fully on board with the West's antipathy towards Russia, and they also seem to have difficulties with Pakistan and China. Even Mexico doesn't seem all that enthused about the U.S. position these days, and our relationship with that country goes back a ways - not all of it pleasant. China could make inroads into Latin America, which is at America's soft underbelly.

That's the risk we run if we go in a bit too overamped about these things. Those who aren't really quite on board with it could react in ways which are unpredictable and could work against us in the long run.

India's difficulties with both Pakistan and China are pretty long-rooted at this point.
Part of their more pleasant relationship comes from the substantial amount of arms provided by the Russians to India. Whilst that has dropped over the years, Russia was still the largest supplier of arm to India up until the Ukraine conflict started to impact on Russian ability to export arms.

China has made substantial inroads in both Asia and particularly the Pacific, traditionally an area Australia is predominant. We were on auto pilot for too long, instead of acting in a true partnership model.
I'm not thinking China is better, but they are more active right now.