NATO isn’t moving towards Russia! Everyone immediately around Russia are joining NATO for security from you lunatics you gaslighting MF’s!
Oh no, the russians may smash us with their remaining heap of old soviet junk. Better behave.
Now NATO is not so much a military alliance as a group of regional democratic (except few controversial ones) countries that:
1. Have collective WMD-protection from Russia WMD-blackmail.
2. Forbid all other regional countries to have it.
Which make sense only up to 2014-2022 years, but not after.
Now NATO have only 3 ways:
1. Or restore faith in International Law, which very unlikely, because during almost 2 years of Ukrainian war, due to fear of Russia WMD-blackmail, even NATO was afraid to assist Ukraine with more than ~2% of its weapon stocks. Demonstrating complete superiority of WMD over International Law.
2. Or NATO accepts to it all regional democracies by “democracy = NATO = WMD protection” logic.
3. Or, for the sake of survival and not repeating other mistakes (Moldova, Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine, threats to Armenia, Kazakhstan, etc.), all not protected by WMD regional countries, sooner or later, will start to create any affordable forms of WMD. As in its time, because of similar Soviet threat, this was done by China, Britain, France, Israel.
If there is a military Schengen, it will only be because of Russia’s actions. Day by day it becomes clear Putin didn’t think this through.
Oh dear, the Kremlin is making threats again, whatever will we do?
I’ve read a couple of articles on this interview / proposition, and I still don’t know exactly what they are requesting.
Short of having an EU standing army (a concept which is probably going to be closely reexamined given the current state of the world ), countries that still have an uneasiness with their neighbor stemming from the words of the 20th century, or the Cold War, are unlikely to be comfortable with another country’s military passing through its territory with minimal oversight, allied or not.
Moreover, the speaker talks about how necessary this would be for rapid mobilization during conflict, but I don’t know that that has ever been a problem. Even before the Schengen discussions, but after the end of post world War II occupation, there were extensive plans for rapid mobilization throughout Europe by European countries, as well as ferrying troops across the Atlantic for the US to shore up NATO formations, in the event of Soviet hostilities, and these actions were routinely practiced on a large scale through such things as reforger exercises. So I don’t see why that would not hold true now. Basically, in wartime, red tape tends to go away, and I don’t think it would be as much of a problem as has been suggested. Conversely, letting somebody else’s standing army on your sovereign territory during peacetime understandably could ruffle some feathers in the population. I think NATO’s current approach of rotating units, as well as forming multinational rapid response formations is probably the best approach for now.
LOL Russia. What a black joke of a “country”.
This needs to get done sooner, rather than later!!!!
So what’s that? Free movement of military through Europe? I’m a bit lost with this example.
We feel your pain l’il boiled frog
This is like homeowners threatening to lock their doors and windows at night, and burglars staging an angry protest in response.
11 comments
NATO isn’t moving towards Russia! Everyone immediately around Russia are joining NATO for security from you lunatics you gaslighting MF’s!
Oh no, the russians may smash us with their remaining heap of old soviet junk. Better behave.
Now NATO is not so much a military alliance as a group of regional democratic (except few controversial ones) countries that:
1. Have collective WMD-protection from Russia WMD-blackmail.
2. Forbid all other regional countries to have it.
Which make sense only up to 2014-2022 years, but not after.
Now NATO have only 3 ways:
1. Or restore faith in International Law, which very unlikely, because during almost 2 years of Ukrainian war, due to fear of Russia WMD-blackmail, even NATO was afraid to assist Ukraine with more than ~2% of its weapon stocks. Demonstrating complete superiority of WMD over International Law.
2. Or NATO accepts to it all regional democracies by “democracy = NATO = WMD protection” logic.
3. Or, for the sake of survival and not repeating other mistakes (Moldova, Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine, threats to Armenia, Kazakhstan, etc.), all not protected by WMD regional countries, sooner or later, will start to create any affordable forms of WMD. As in its time, because of similar Soviet threat, this was done by China, Britain, France, Israel.
If there is a military Schengen, it will only be because of Russia’s actions. Day by day it becomes clear Putin didn’t think this through.
Oh dear, the Kremlin is making threats again, whatever will we do?
I’ve read a couple of articles on this interview / proposition, and I still don’t know exactly what they are requesting.
Short of having an EU standing army (a concept which is probably going to be closely reexamined given the current state of the world ), countries that still have an uneasiness with their neighbor stemming from the words of the 20th century, or the Cold War, are unlikely to be comfortable with another country’s military passing through its territory with minimal oversight, allied or not.
Moreover, the speaker talks about how necessary this would be for rapid mobilization during conflict, but I don’t know that that has ever been a problem. Even before the Schengen discussions, but after the end of post world War II occupation, there were extensive plans for rapid mobilization throughout Europe by European countries, as well as ferrying troops across the Atlantic for the US to shore up NATO formations, in the event of Soviet hostilities, and these actions were routinely practiced on a large scale through such things as reforger exercises. So I don’t see why that would not hold true now. Basically, in wartime, red tape tends to go away, and I don’t think it would be as much of a problem as has been suggested. Conversely, letting somebody else’s standing army on your sovereign territory during peacetime understandably could ruffle some feathers in the population. I think NATO’s current approach of rotating units, as well as forming multinational rapid response formations is probably the best approach for now.
LOL Russia. What a black joke of a “country”.
This needs to get done sooner, rather than later!!!!
So what’s that? Free movement of military through Europe? I’m a bit lost with this example.
We feel your pain l’il boiled frog
This is like homeowners threatening to lock their doors and windows at night, and burglars staging an angry protest in response.
The outrage is real