NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/world/europe/03nato.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=todayspaper

Basically, Bush's plan to allow Georgia and the Ukraine into NATO is opposed, most importantly by France and Germany.


My question: Other than a buffer zone and a potential base of operations against So..I mean, Russian military advances towards Europe and the Middle East, how would NATO benefit from their inclusion?

Georgia is nice because of it's proximity to the middle east. Incase Turkmenistan ever gets uppity, Georgia is always there.

Really those reasons should be enough. They have the position in the world, and assuming that they have the willingness to commit troops when they are called upon, I see no reason not to include them. Russia can go cry in a corner for all I care. They're just on their way back to their old tradition of messing with everything that everyone else in the world is doing to their own benefit.

Really those reasons should be enough. They have the position in the world, and assuming that they have the willingness to commit troops when they are called upon, I see no reason not to include them. Russia can go cry in a corner for all I care. They're just on their way back to their old tradition of messing with everything that everyone else in the world is doing to their own benefit.
So do you think this would really deter or delay the formation of a new Soviet state?

So do you think this would really deter or delay the formation of a new Soviet state?

I don't think there will be another Soviet state. I do think there will be another hostile totalitarian government in Moscow in the near future, especially since Russia has had a democratic government how many times in its past? Oh, right, never. It's too easy for people to revert to their own comfortable ways if the new system isn't set up correctly, as the democracy in Russia wasn't.

So do you think this would really deter or delay the formation of a new Soviet state?

Putin is looking to revive the Russian Empire, not the Soviet Union.

And, as I said in the other topic on this subject, this is only going to piss the Russians off, and frankly, we should be trying to stay on their good side. Pretty soon Russia is going to be a major supplier of oil, and, unless somebody decides to stop them pretty quick, a superpower again.
(Thats just an IMO, of course.)
But then, Russia already has the largest number of tanks in the world, the most nukes, and the capability to massivly expand its armed forces.
Putin's already started tapping into Russia's nationalistic streak. It wont be much longer before people are singing 'God Save the Tsar' in the streets and waving double-headed eagle flags.

It wont be much longer before people are singing 'God Save the Tsar' in the streets and waving double-headed eagle flags.

Somehow I doubt that.

Somehow I doubt that.

Not in a strictly literal sense, of course.

Not in a strictly literal sense, of course.

Oh, okay. I assumed most Russians were (lower-case 'r') republicans.

Oh, okay. I assumed most Russians were (lower-case 'r') republicans.

Russia seems to have this amazing ability to rally under decent leadership. Putin may be a jackass, but he clearly isnt stupid. I'd say he has the ability or revive Russia in traditional method of Russian rulers who revive Russia, IE: Brutal crushings, secret police, nationalism, militant expanionism and so forth.
Which means people in the streets singing something and waving flags of some sort, in all likelyhood.
Of course, it might also mean large men with guns pointed to the heads of those peoples children just in case the fail to show correct patriotic spirit, but meh.

Normally I don't post, but I think I will on this rare occasion.


Pretty soon Russia is going to be a major supplier of oil, and, unless somebody decides to stop them pretty quick, a superpower again.


Oil may make moeny in the short term (10-20 years max) but in the long run it's one of the worst commodities to make most of ones money on, since apart form the whol peak oil thing with oil supplies decreasing, most of the world is looking at other energy options.



Russia already has the...most nukes,


Actually the United States technically has the most Nuclear warheads, I beleive we have something like 400 more then Russia does.

Oil may make moeny in the short term (10-20 years max) but in the long run it's one of the worst commodities to make most of ones money on, since apart form the whol peak oil thing with oil supplies decreasing, most of the world is looking at other energy options.
Siberia happens to be one of the largest untapped natural resource reserves on the planet.
Fourtunatly for Putin, Russia doesnt seem to have a very strong environmentalist movement.
The only place Russians would really get upset about being trashed is Lake Baikal, which Putin probably plans to save as a retirement home. Apparently Hitler was going to have his retirement there as well :P




Actually the United States technically has the most Nuclear warheads, I beleive we have something like 400 more then Russia does.
Uhhh...Russia has something like 16,000 total wareheads, about 7,000 of which are active. The US has an estimated 5,000, about 4,000 of which are active.
Of course, information on Russia's nuclear program is sketchy at best...not that it matters, since it only takes one for everybody to launch all of them at once.

My question: Other than a buffer zone and a potential base of operations against So..I mean, Russian military advances towards Europe and the Middle East, how would NATO benefit from their inclusion?

Hello?

It's about who controls the oil pipelines from the Caspian Sea (producers:Russia, Iran, Kazakhstan iirc) through the Caucasus and Eastern Europe to the great central and western european market.

Also don't forget that NATO countries must buy a given percentage (cannot remember what) of their military supplies from NATO countries. So, enlargment means more potential customers for NATO military tech.

Actually the United States technically has the most Nuclear warheads, I beleive we have something like 400 more then Russia does.

Tis is vat ve vanted yoo too tink.

linky:

http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/nukestatus.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/world/europe/03nato.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=todayspaper

Basically, Bush's plan to allow Georgia and the Ukraine into NATO is opposed, most importantly by France and Germany.


My question: Other than a buffer zone and a potential base of operations against So..I mean, Russian military advances towards Europe and the Middle East, how would NATO benefit from their inclusion?Last time I checked, the Ukraine was the biggest contributor to UN peacekeeping forces. Also, Georgia sounds like a US state, and this could avoid confusion for some of Bush's constituency.

what nato needs to do is expelle the u.s. entirely, until its forign policy no longer puts corporate economic intrests ahead of environmental protection, civil rights and even human survival.

the whole world needs to boycott the u.s., its economy, its currency, and everything that comes from here untill that chainges. anyone who thinks that can't be done and the rest of the world couldn't get allong without anything from the u.s. is nuts. maybe back in the fifties when the u.s. made quality tools and equipment that was one thing, but everything made and sold anywhere by a u.s. company is available not only cheaper, but of higher quality as well, from somewhere else, often from many other places. europe and asia primarily, but even some of the emerging nations do a better job of it.

the only thing america still makes that is worth a dam are weapon systems, and even those aren't really what the rest of the world most needs. and even those, people with inginuity, and there ARE people with the requisite knowledge and ingenuity everywhere these days, can be worked arround and even out done.

=^^=
.../\...

what nato needs to do is expelle the u.s. entirely, until its forign policy no longer puts corporate economic intrests ahead of environmental protection, civil rights and even human survival.

the whole world needs to boycott the u.s., its economy, its currency, and everything that comes from here untill that chainges. anyone who thinks that can't be done and the rest of the world couldn't get allong without anything from the u.s. is nuts. maybe back in the fifties when the u.s. made quality tools and equipment that was one thing, but everything made and sold anywhere by a u.s. company is available not only cheaper, but of higher quality as well, from somewhere else, often from many other places. europe and asia primarily, but even some of the emerging nations do a better job of it.

the only thing america still makes that is worth a dam are weapon systems, and even those aren't really what the rest of the world most needs. and even those, people with inginuity, and there ARE people with the requisite knowledge and ingenuity everywhere these days, can be worked arround and even out done.

=^^=
.../\...


That idea would ruin the European, American, and global economy, and turn the world in an economic crisis like in the '30s.

you've never heard of the poor quality products China exports ?
What makes you think American products are inferior in quality compared with Chinese products ? That's nonsense.

Without a good economy, there is not even money for 'environmental protection', and all that good stuff.

Georgia is not a democratic country, Ukraine is badly one either.

I think it's enough to doesn't accept them in the OTAN, for the moment.

The quicker we get ride of oil, the best it would be for us, oil dependance is the greater mistake Western countries have ever done.

Yes the Chinese product are very crappy, bad quality and are total copy of other products...they are cheaper, but you have to buy them 10 more frequently...

USA is a country with a lots of failures, still, it's almost a democracy ( I say almost because of your very bad electoral system wo permit to the man who obtain less votes on the overall to nevertheless being elected... )

what nato needs to do is expelle the u.s. entirely, until its forign policy no longer puts corporate economic intrests ahead of environmental protection, civil rights and even human survival.

the whole world needs to boycott the u.s., its economy, its currency, and everything that comes from here untill that chainges. anyone who thinks that can't be done and the rest of the world couldn't get allong without anything from the u.s. is nuts. maybe back in the fifties when the u.s. made quality tools and equipment that was one thing, but everything made and sold anywhere by a u.s. company is available not only cheaper, but of higher quality as well, from somewhere else, often from many other places. europe and asia primarily, but even some of the emerging nations do a better job of it.

the only thing america still makes that is worth a dam are weapon systems, and even those aren't really what the rest of the world most needs. and even those, people with inginuity, and there ARE people with the requisite knowledge and ingenuity everywhere these days, can be worked arround and even out done.

=^^=
.../\...

I like you. Youre silly.

what nato needs to do is expelle the u.s. entirely, until its forign policy no longer puts corporate economic intrests ahead of environmental protection, civil rights and even human survival.

the whole world needs to boycott the u.s., its economy, its currency, and everything that comes from here untill that chainges. anyone who thinks that can't be done and the rest of the world couldn't get allong without anything from the u.s. is nuts. maybe back in the fifties when the u.s. made quality tools and equipment that was one thing, but everything made and sold anywhere by a u.s. company is available not only cheaper, but of higher quality as well, from somewhere else, often from many other places. europe and asia primarily, but even some of the emerging nations do a better job of it.

the only thing america still makes that is worth a dam are weapon systems, and even those aren't really what the rest of the world most needs. and even those, people with inginuity, and there ARE people with the requisite knowledge and ingenuity everywhere these days, can be worked arround and even out done.

=^^=
.../\...


:rolleyes:

what nato needs to do is expelle the u.s. entirely, until its forign policy no longer puts corporate economic intrests ahead of environmental protection, civil rights and even human survival.

the whole world needs to boycott the u.s., its economy, its currency, and everything that comes from here untill that chainges. anyone who thinks that can't be done and the rest of the world couldn't get allong without anything from the u.s. is nuts. maybe back in the fifties when the u.s. made quality tools and equipment that was one thing, but everything made and sold anywhere by a u.s. company is available not only cheaper, but of higher quality as well, from somewhere else, often from many other places. europe and asia primarily, but even some of the emerging nations do a better job of it.

the only thing america still makes that is worth a dam are weapon systems, and even those aren't really what the rest of the world most needs. and even those, people with inginuity, and there ARE people with the requisite knowledge and ingenuity everywhere these days, can be worked arround and even out done.

=^^=
.../\...


Perhaps we would take you seriously if you used proper spelling and grammar.

Or not.

Perhaps we would take you seriously if you used proper spelling and grammar.

Or not.

Must...destroy...ca-pi-tol-ism....NRGH!

Really those reasons should be enough. They have the position in the world, and assuming that they have the willingness to commit troops when they are called upon, I see no reason not to include them. Russia can go cry in a corner for all I care. They're just on their way back to their old tradition of messing with everything that everyone else in the world is doing to their own benefit.

The Ukrainian population is deeply divided on the issue of a NATO membership, with the majority of the citizens in the Western part in favor of a NATO membership and the citizens in the Eastern part strongly opposed to this.
Combined with other potentially dividing issues in the Ukraine a NATO membership at this point could simply rip the nation apart.
I do not believe that this is in the NATO's interest.

Georgia is not only a defective democracy, but also has this conflict about South Ossetia.
This might lead to the NATO military supporting a dictatorship government in a civil war in the future, which is also nothing the NATO should openly do.

My question: Other than a buffer zone and a potential base of operations against So..I mean, Russian military advances towards Europe and the Middle East, how would NATO benefit from their inclusion?

Hot Ukrainian women!

Honestly though, remember that the Ukrainian region has been historicly known as the "breadbasket of Europe". Very good farmland. That right there is, if played right, a secure source of food in a more economicly free system. Including Ukraine in NATO offers her protection and inclusion, and intices her to offer up her produce.

And of course I have a very nationalistic Ukrainian girlfreind, I pretty much have to agree with her opnion that they should join NATO, or else not good for me.

surely the reason for opposition is the current tensions between Russia and the two countries. if they join NATO, other members of the alliance will be required to join in any military action against Russia should things turn sour.

that seems like a good reason to me to back off for a while till things cool down. other than that there's no reason they shouldn't be welcomed in the near future.

this is what i understand of the situation, largely from the BBC... i may be mistaken...

But then, Russia already has the largest number of tanks in the world, the most nukes, and the capability to massivly expand its armed forces.


quantity does not defeat quality, the Russian army is conscripted, trained poorly and is corrupt, i doubt theyll make superpower status, but they will remain a force to be reckoned with

quantity does not defeat quality, the Russian army is conscripted, trained poorly and is corrupt, i doubt theyll make superpower status, but they will remain a force to be reckoned withMethinks you're forgetting Russia's most powerful weapon: Oodles of oil and natural gas reserves.

quantity does not defeat quality, the Russian army is conscripted, trained poorly and is corrupt, i doubt theyll make superpower status, but they will remain a force to be reckoned with

REALLY?
Funny, I was under the impression that the allies started winning WWII when the Germans decided that quality was more important than quantity.
In any case, take a look 'ere:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_size_of_armed_forces

Of course, that probably isnt too accurate, but hey. Russia apparently has 23,000 tanks. Thats enough to most other countries tank forces under a pile of metal, which probably wouldnt be required anyway, since most other countries use...old Russian tanks.

And its definitly not a good idea to underestimate Russian tanks. So far the US has not gone up against later model T-series in actual combat. Iraqi T-72's are not exactly the pinnacle of Russian tank technology.

Methinks you're forgetting Russia's most powerful weapon: Oodles of oil and natural gas reserves.

Quite. Not to mention gold, coal, iron, diamonds and who knows what else.
And the ability to turn off Europe's supplies of gas and oil.