Forum - The Sexiest Forum on the net

This member has been with us 10 years or more! (Joined 14.4 years ago)

Member Since: 25-Nov-09
Location: NZ
Posts: 1137

Forum Level:

A Thinker

NATO

17-Apr-22 10:00

Should Sweden and Finland apply to join NATO then all existing member countries must agree to them joining.

In the US this means 75% of the Senate must agree to the countries joining.

Can that be expected?

Especially given 30% of House Republicans voted against a symbolic vote of support for NATO. An Alliance the US is a founding member of and the one time NATO was deployed in defence of a member country was in the US War on Terror.

Will the Republican Senators vote against solely because President Biden is supporting Ukraine?

Politics aside what will the US public think?

Sweden and Finland have well established Armed Forces (large & modern) and Defence Industries (especially Sweden in the latter). They therefore will not be a drain on NATO resources.

They are effectively “friends” of NATO (I can’t remember the actual phrase).

Both have also deploy to Afghanistan in support of the US war on terror.

What does it say if the Senate does not vote to accept?

And the relationship the US has with Russia vs democratic countries?

What does it say about the US’s status as leader of the free world?

What does it say if Trump weighs and says no? Will the Republican Senators follow him? And if they don’t how will that affect the Republican Party?

Is this to be a new era of US isolation?

Will this be another attempt to dismantle NATO as Putin wants?

If the story about 2% of GDP being spent is rolled out; remember both Sweden and Finland spend more than 2% on defence.

If this thread breaks our rules please

Raven2005

This member has been with us 15 years or more! (Joined 19.1 years ago)

This shield means the member is a Verified Poster

Member Since: 7-Apr-05
Location: GB
Posts: 59296

Forum Level:

Handle Me With Care

17-Apr-22 14:32

Until recently, there was a long standing Cruise Ship Link between Tilbury at the base of The River Thames,London, to Russia vie Sweden and Findland.

If this reply breaks our rules please

milfchaser

This member has been with us 10 years or more! (Joined 10.5 years ago)

Member Since: 12-Oct-13
Location: US
Posts: 1577

Forum Level:

Active Contributor

21-Apr-22 00:39

The US public was never against NATO. Any anti-NATO sentiment was due to richer EU countries not paying as much for the common defense as they had already agreed to, and some US politicians have made note of this in the past. Even President Obama made an issue of this in the 2010's.

Trump, of course, being the grade-A asshat that he was, made a big deal about this the wrong way, and even threatened to remove the US from NATO, but the American public has *never* been in favor of our leaving NATO.

I think Sweden and Finland's entry will be a shoo-in, and the Senate will overwhelmingly approve of it on the American side of things.

As for Biden's involvement causing issues domestically concerning NATO, Biden has some popularity issues, but it's not because of NATO or the war.

If this reply breaks our rules please

ChMotCh

Member Since: 25-Nov-09
Location: NZ
Posts: 1137

Forum Level:

A Thinker

21-Apr-22 08:13

milfchaser said: The US public was never against NATO. Any anti-NATO sentiment was due to richer EU countries not paying as much for the common defense as they had already agreed to, and some US politicians have made note of this in the past. Even President Obama made an issue of this in the 2010's.

Trump, of course, being the grade-A asshat that he was, made a big deal about this the wrong way, and even threatened to remove the US from NATO, but the American public has *never* been in favor of our leaving NATO.

I think Sweden and Finland's entry will be a shoo-in, and the Senate will overwhelmingly approve of it on the American side of things.

As for Biden's involvement causing issues domestically concerning NATO, Biden has some popularity issues, but it's not because of NATO or the war.

Thanks for your comments Milf.

I think Sweden and Finland will be a great addition to NATO and I hope your Senate does turn it into a political issue.

As for the 2% that’s true but I have to say was it a push by Trump to get purchases of US gear especially the F35.

If this reply breaks our rules please

Raven2005

Member Since: 7-Apr-05
Location: GB
Posts: 59296

Forum Level:

Handle Me With Care

21-Apr-22 13:21

Will Russia invade Finland and Sweden ?
Doult it.
So whats the point of them joining the US Based NATO ?

If this reply breaks our rules please

milfchaser

Member Since: 12-Oct-13
Location: US
Posts: 1577

Forum Level:

Active Contributor

22-Apr-22 14:11

Raven2005 said: Will Russia invade Finland and Sweden ?
Doult it.
So whats the point of them joining the US Based NATO ?

Closer military alignment with other EU countries? Closer sharing of intelligence?

If this reply breaks our rules please

Raven2005

Member Since: 7-Apr-05
Location: GB
Posts: 59296

Forum Level:

Handle Me With Care

22-Apr-22 15:26

milfchaser said:

Raven2005 said: Will Russia invade Finland and Sweden ?
Doult it.
So whats the point of them joining the US Based NATO ?

Closer military alignment with other EU countries? Closer sharing of intelligence?

NATO can work in the opposite direction.
If Putin & Co set foot into a "NATO" Country, They would be drawn into it.

If this reply breaks our rules please

milfchaser

Member Since: 12-Oct-13
Location: US
Posts: 1577

Forum Level:

Active Contributor

23-Apr-22 16:44

Raven2005 said:

milfchaser said:

Raven2005 said: Will Russia invade Finland and Sweden ?
Doult it.
So whats the point of them joining the US Based NATO ?

Closer military alignment with other EU countries? Closer sharing of intelligence?

NATO can work in the opposite direction.
If Putin & Co set foot into a "NATO" Country, They would be drawn into it.

Yeah, and that might happen anyway, whether Sweden and Finland join or not. And, of course, if any of the NATO countries are attacked, that would probably be World War 3.

If this reply breaks our rules please

Raven2005

Member Since: 7-Apr-05
Location: GB
Posts: 59296

Forum Level:

Handle Me With Care

23-Apr-22 22:33

milfchaser said:

Raven2005 said:

milfchaser said:

Raven2005 said: Will Russia invade Finland and Sweden ?
Doult it.
So whats the point of them joining the US Based NATO ?

Closer military alignment with other EU countries? Closer sharing of intelligence?

NATO can work in the opposite direction.
If Putin & Co set foot into a "NATO" Country, They would be drawn into it.

Yeah, and that might happen anyway, whether Sweden and Finland join or not. And, of course, if any of the NATO countries are attacked, that would probably be World War 3.

I fear that a mistake might happen to trigger off WW3

If this reply breaks our rules please

alley52cat

This member has been with us 10 years or more! (Joined 12.7 years ago)

Member Since: 8-Aug-11
Location: GB
Posts: 7929

Forum Level:

Regular Contributor

24-Apr-22 14:30

Do the people of Sweden and Finland want to join NATO ?

If this reply breaks our rules please

DanajustDana

24-Apr-22 19:58

Actually, admitting Sweden and Finland into NATO is a bad idea. We just witnessed Russia invade Ukraine, Finland shares an 830 mile border with Russia. This obviously makes Finland a liability rather than an asset as it would require a larger allied, and in practice, American commitment. The US has no security interests in Sweden or Finland and thus no reason to go to war for them.

If this reply breaks our rules please

Raven2005

Member Since: 7-Apr-05
Location: GB
Posts: 59296

Forum Level:

Handle Me With Care

24-Apr-22 20:57

DanajustDana said: Actually, admitting Sweden and Finland into NATO is a bad idea. We just witnessed Russia invade Ukraine, Finland shares an 830 mile border with Russia. This obviously makes Finland a liability rather than an asset as it would require a larger allied, and in practice, American commitment. The US has no security interests in Sweden or Finland and thus no reason to go to war for them.

Actually Dana, I noticed what you said most in the first place. The word was " admitting"..
The USA may be thinking to put out a ploy, that everyone need to be in "NATO:

If this reply breaks our rules please

DanajustDana

24-Apr-22 21:40

Raven2005 said:

DanajustDana said: Actually, admitting Sweden and Finland into NATO is a bad idea. We just witnessed Russia invade Ukraine, Finland shares an 830 mile border with Russia. This obviously makes Finland a liability rather than an asset as it would require a larger allied, and in practice, American commitment. The US has no security interests in Sweden or Finland and thus no reason to go to war for them.

Actually Dana, I noticed what you said most in the first place. The word was " admitting"..
The USA may be thinking to put out a ploy, that everyone need to be in "NATO:

That's not the case Ravers. They didn't bring Kiev into NATO because they had no reason to defend it, risking war, especially one that would more than likely go nuclear. The same rationale applies to Finland and Sweden. I would also point out that 75% of the vote from the senate will not be forthcoming.

If this reply breaks our rules please

PhallicSupermacyOne

This member has been with us for 1 year or more! (Joined 3.8 year(s) ago)

Member Since: 16-Jul-20
Location: US
Posts: 504

Forum Level:

Active Contributor

25-Apr-22 12:23

Get rid of NATO! It is time for Europe to maintain its own defense.

America will be better off focusing on the southern border and building alliances with Central and South America than the continued waste with Europe.

If this reply breaks our rules please

caswer

This member has been with us 5 years or more! (Joined 5.7 years ago)

Member Since: 28-Jul-18
Location: RU
Posts: 430

Forum Level:

I Like to Reflect

27-Apr-22 17:21

Everything is extremely simple...
the United States produces weapons, NATO members buy them.
Just business...

If this reply breaks our rules please

Raven2005

Member Since: 7-Apr-05
Location: GB
Posts: 59296

Forum Level:

Handle Me With Care

28-Apr-22 13:57

caswer said: Everything is extremely simple...
the United States produces weapons, NATO members buy them.
Just business...

Then NATO Sell/Give weapons to Non NATO Countries that they like.

If this reply breaks our rules please

milfchaser

Member Since: 12-Oct-13
Location: US
Posts: 1577

Forum Level:

Active Contributor

4-May-22 09:06

PhallicSupermacyOne said: Get rid of NATO! It is time for Europe to maintain its own defense.

America will be better off focusing on the southern border and building alliances with Central and South America than the continued waste with Europe.

If the US gets out of NATO, it will get out of Europe. If the US gets out of Europe, Europe will probably be at war within 25-50 years. It's a continent with a long, long history of warfare, with numerous countries equipped with modern and efficient weaponry.

Just as the UK was a 'moderating' influence in the EU, the US having troops in NATO helps maintain the peace on the continent. Before 1945 there were 3-4 major wars in Central Europe during the previous 75 years (the Franco-Prussian War, WW1 and WW2 -- the Spanish Civil War arguably being the 4th one).

If this reply breaks our rules please

ChMotCh

Member Since: 25-Nov-09
Location: NZ
Posts: 1137

Forum Level:

A Thinker

5-May-22 08:49

milfchaser said:

PhallicSupermacyOne said: Get rid of NATO! It is time for Europe to maintain its own defense.

America will be better off focusing on the southern border and building alliances with Central and South America than the continued waste with Europe.

If the US gets out of NATO, it will get out of Europe. If the US gets out of Europe, Europe will probably be at war within 25-50 years. It's a continent with a long, long history of warfare, with numerous countries equipped with modern and efficient weaponry.

Just as the UK was a 'moderating' influence in the EU, the US having troops in NATO helps maintain the peace on the continent. Before 1945 there were 3-4 major wars in Central Europe during the previous 75 years (the Franco-Prussian War, WW1 and WW2 -- the Spanish Civil War arguably being the 4th one).

Milf some context maybe be needed here. In WW1 the US operate an isolation policy from 1914 to 1917.

when it did join the Allies (following the sinking of a ship I can’t remember it’s name), the US contribution was not that great considering the size of the country and the contribution made by the French and British Empires and others.

For example only one US battleship squadron joined the Grand Fleet of the Royal Navy.

There is an argument to say the potential was there, but Germany had already been fighting Russia a much larger population before the 1917 Revolution.

It was the halting of shipping into Germany and hence food shortages which ultimately lead to the collapse, armistice and surrender.

For example the Imperial German Navy’s High Seas Fleet refused to put to see with a number of ships hoisting the red flag.

President Woodrow Wilson was anti anything imperial and xxxxxxxxxx the break up of the German Crown and the Austrian Empire.

It’s debatable whether he had not done so whether the Nazis (& indeed fascism) would have come to power.

The subsequent navy treaties resulted in tight controls. Not only was tonnage cut there were controls put on naval building and Britain whose ships were worn out due to WW1 could not replace them due to the treaties.

That’s not to say Britain did not have financial issues but politicians decide there wouldn’t be another major war until initially 10 years.

In WW2 the same thing applied and as you will know the US did not join until 1941 and not due to any attack to allies.

I’m not saying the US didn’t help in the defence on the world, what I’m saying is they were in a better position compared to the European powers.

If this reply breaks our rules please

ChMotCh

Member Since: 25-Nov-09
Location: NZ
Posts: 1137

Forum Level:

A Thinker

5-May-22 08:59

Article Five of the NATO agreement says an attack on one is an attack on all.

That clause has only ever been used once.

That was in the war on terror. Article Five has never been used other than that.

Finland has a large standing armed forces because of the Winter War. Currently NATO troops are exercising in Finland.

Finland (& Sweden) are what is known as a “friend “ of NATO.

It appears Finland will join NATO; however Sweden might be different not because it doesn’t want to or is worried about Russia given its well established military (especially aircraft) industry and the completion it would bring.

Has for nuclear weapons, Russia already has weapons able to strike Finland and Sweden and any additional established will be for show and will never use.

Russia also cannot maintain an armed attack along a 2000k border.

If this reply breaks our rules please

milfchaser

Member Since: 12-Oct-13
Location: US
Posts: 1577

Forum Level:

Active Contributor

6-May-22 22:23

ChMotCH,
The US learned after WW2 that it needed to be involved in peacekeeping, and it needed to be involved in the affairs of the greater world if it didn't want to be dragged into highly destructive wars like WW2. Isolationism in the US helped give us WW2. US history books acknowledge that.

It's also why we did the Marshall Plan in 1946 -- to rebuild Germany, so WW3 wouldn't take place. The European Allies (mainly France and the UK) decided to punish Germany after WW1, and the resulting deprivation in Germany gave us the rise of Hitler and ultimately WW2.

So if the US pulls out of Europe, you'll see a major war within 25 years. The restraining influence of the US military on the continent helps keep the peace on the continent. One could argue that Trump's anti-NATO statements, as well as some weakness in NATO militarily,. sped up the Russian attack on Ukraine. Putin saw an opening. Perhaps he viewed Biden as weak, which also possibly presented an opening. And the EU wasn't exactly united until the Ukrainian war started.

Of course, now we are in a different situation. NATO is re-arming, Germany is re-arming, and NATO is united, in its intent to keep the war from spreading further, and helping the Ukrainians defend their country and drive the invaders out.

For these reasons, I think NATO is still pertinent, and the US needs to be involved. Because war in Europe ultimately means the US will be involved in that war.

If this reply breaks our rules please

This reply has been removed as it did not comply with our content rules. We have left this message here so you are aware a reply was made in this position.

just big enough

This member has been with us 20 years or more! (Joined 20.6 years ago)

Member Since: 24-Sep-03
Location: GB
Posts: 147

Forum Level:

Just getting started

28-May-22 05:15

I don't think the US will much sway in it, it will be down to European countries russian forces right now are no threat to the US, this will be European verdict based on how they see Russia future plans, both of these countries will be an asset to NATO, orange man and his NATO comments have definitely damaged opinions on the US its hard to take it seriously when a member of NATO makes political threats against the others.

If this reply breaks our rules please

just big enough

Member Since: 24-Sep-03
Location: GB
Posts: 147

Forum Level:

Just getting started

28-May-22 05:33

milfchaser said: ChMotCH,
The US learned after WW2 that it needed to be involved in peacekeeping, and it needed to be involved in the affairs of the greater world if it didn't want to be dragged into highly destructive wars like WW2. Isolationism in the US helped give us WW2. US history books acknowledge that.

It's also why we did the Marshall Plan in 1946 -- to rebuild Germany, so WW3 wouldn't take place. The European Allies (mainly France and the UK) decided to punish Germany after WW1, and the resulting deprivation in Germany gave us the rise of Hitler and ultimately WW2.

So if the US pulls out of Europe, you'll see a major war within 25 years. The restraining influence of the US military on the continent helps keep the peace on the continent. One could argue that Trump's anti-NATO statements, as well as some weakness in NATO militarily,. sped up the Russian attack on Ukraine. Putin saw an opening. Perhaps he viewed Biden as weak, which also possibly presented an opening. And the EU wasn't exactly united until the Ukrainian war started.

Of course, now we are in a different situation. NATO is re-arming, Germany is re-arming, and NATO is united, in its intent to keep the war from spreading further, and helping the Ukrainians defend their country and drive the invaders out.

For these reasons, I think NATO is still pertinent, and the US needs to be involved. Because war in Europe ultimately means the US will be involved in that war.

you maybe over estimating the US role in modern day, part of this conflict is Russia not wanting the US on its boarders, Ukraine were doing very well with the help received from Europe, Russian tanks and aircraft are not being destroyed by American weapons, and very difficult to move howitzer are being destroyed by more agile Russian mortars. If the US leave Europe a war in 25 years is unlikely, the biggest threat in Europe is Russia distain for America and putin is Constantly reminding the world of that putin made it very clear when he put his troops on Ukraine boarders he did not want them as part of NATO for reasons above so you could argue US involvement in Europe was a keystone in this conflict starting. NATO is a group of countries working together as equal members and that is how NATO will stay nobody views US as the key player in this that's Trumps view.

If this reply breaks our rules please

milfchaser

Member Since: 12-Oct-13
Location: US
Posts: 1577

Forum Level:

Active Contributor

28-May-22 07:47

just big enough said: you maybe over estimating the US role in modern day, part of this conflict is Russia not wanting the US on its boarders, Ukraine were doing very well with the help received from Europe, Russian tanks and aircraft are not being destroyed by American weapons, and very difficult to move howitzer are being destroyed by more agile Russian mortars. If the US leave Europe a war in 25 years is unlikely, the biggest threat in Europe is Russia distain for America and putin is Constantly reminding the world of that putin made it very clear when he put his troops on Ukraine boarders he did not want them as part of NATO for reasons above so you could argue US involvement in Europe was a keystone in this conflict starting. NATO is a group of countries working together as equal members and that is how NATO will stay nobody views US as the key player in this that's Trumps view.

Disagree. US pulls out, Europe -- and Germany especially -- will rearm. With a population of around 600 million (almost twice the population of the US and almost three times that of Russia), the EU could field a military larger than the US or Russia, as they have the population and the resources. If and when that happens, Russia would respond in kind. Russia fears a rearmed Germany more than they fear the US, as they have fought two devastating wars with them just within the last 110 years.

It is not well publicized, but Russian military leaders still view Germany as a potential threat to Russia. They were very hesitant to let Germany reunite because of it. The view of Germany as a potential adversary is something reinforced every Victory Day on May 9 in Russia -- The Great Patriotic War wasn't fought against the US, after all.

If the US pulls out of Europe, and Germany re-arms to fill the void (which it would, because they particularly would feel vulnerable against Russian threats), there will probably be war on your continent within 25-30 years, probably between Russia and the EU. Europe is a continent with a long, long history of war, that only ended (for the most part -- if you exclude the civil war in Bosnia and Yugoslavia) in 1945, and there is no guarantee that it would or will never happen again.

Why do you think the EU was concerned about the UK pulling out of the EU? It's for the same reason they didn't like the idea of Trump pulling the US out of NATO. They realize that the US, as well as the UK, were moderating influences on the continent, both in the EU's dealings with Russia militarily, but also moderating influences on rivalries within the EU, and they also knew that the military presence of the US and UK in NATO would help prevent a greater European war.

US involvement was not a keystone in the Ukraine War starting. NATO leadership allowing NATO to be expanded east to the Russian border was a keystone in the Ukraine War starting. There's a difference. The US was not the only member pushing for expansion eastward. I have yet to read of any EU leader saying "NATO shouldn't expand east", although there may have been some saying that, that I haven't read about. The EU contingent in NATO went along with it. They didn't try to stop it. in fact, the EU itself expanded east to Russia's borders, and the EU has its own international military (called PESCO), which could be expanded into an EU military should the EU further integrate their governmental and military operations. How do you think that idea is viewed in Moscow?

Either way, from the ground in Ukraine, this discussion is beside the point. Innocent people are getting slaughtered, and to them it's not a problem of how the war started, but how to end it to stop the killing. The best thing is to end the war, with Ukraine being intact, and working out a new provision for peace in eastern Europe.

If this reply breaks our rules please

theinfidel

This member has been with us 15 years or more! (Joined 16.3 years ago)

Member Since: 11-Jan-08
Location: ZA
Posts: 393

Forum Level:

Just getting started

31-May-22 13:19

NATO and Russia have viewed each other as enemies since 1945.

All the old Soviet satellite states have good reason to hate Russia which is why they are now part of NATO, with Ukraine still waiting to join and the anti-Russian feeling is probably stronger now than during the cold war.

Against Napoleon & Hitler, Russia was protected by buffer states and long distances but now NATO is on nearly its entire western border with an anti Russian government installed in Ukraine in 2014.

In 1945 the United States had a moral prestige in the world unequalled by that of any other great power but 75 years of aggression and interference in sovereign states has eliminated all the good will and left a trail of chaos & bloodshed. Putin is a POS but he correctly sees the American involvement in Ukraine as part of this policy of aggression.

The invasion of Iraq in 2003, following a sustained propaganda campaign about non-existent weapons of mass destruction, was a perfect copy of Hitler's 1939 attack on Poland. People ignore the fact that in 2014 the legally elected Ukrainian government was ousted and replaced by an anti Russian one in a coup orchestrated with Washington aid and in the following eight years, violence against Russian speaking Ukrainians in the east has led to 14000 deaths.

Russia regards American involvement in the Ukraine as a direct threat and is attempting to neutralize that threat in the same way that President Kennedy was ready to neutralize the threat of Soviet missiles in Cuba.

If this reply breaks our rules please

zeebop

This member has been with us 15 years or more! (Joined 15.3 years ago)

Member Since: 7-Jan-09
Location: US
Posts: 2769

Forum Level:

Active Contributor

3-Jul-22 00:27

Raven2005 said: Will Russia invade Finland and Sweden ?
Doult it.
So whats the point of them joining the US Based NATO ?

Russia has invaded Finland before.

If this reply breaks our rules please

dziga

Member Since: 23-Sep-03
Location: US
Posts: 2295

Forum Level:

Active Contributor

The irony...

3-Jul-22 01:13

that momentum was building for NATO to start unwinding until Putin invaded Ukraine and now it will expand

If this reply breaks our rules please

Raven2005

Member Since: 7-Apr-05
Location: GB
Posts: 59296

Forum Level:

Handle Me With Care

3-Jul-22 17:06

Seems correct that Finland and Sweden should be accepted into NATO.
Do notice that a certain other country was not..

If this reply breaks our rules please

zeebop

Member Since: 7-Jan-09
Location: US
Posts: 2769

Forum Level:

Active Contributor

10-Aug-22 00:56

dziga said: that momentum was building for NATO to start unwinding until Putin invaded Ukraine and now it will expand

Putin thought his conquest of Ukraine would be easy.

If this reply breaks our rules please

beefflaps

23-Aug-22 02:20

dziga said: that momentum was building for NATO to start unwinding until Putin invaded Ukraine and now it will expand

You are correct.

If this reply breaks our rules please

caswer

Member Since: 28-Jul-18
Location: RU
Posts: 430

Forum Level:

I Like to Reflect

7-Oct-22 17:58

Raven2005 said:

caswer said: Everything is extremely simple...
the United States produces weapons, NATO members buy them.
Just business...

Then NATO Sell/Give weapons to Non NATO Countries that they like.

this is US policy. They often fight with someone else's hands

If this reply breaks our rules please

User not found

Comments


	NN Matchmaker: I am a: find looking for me. must have a pic. Help NN grow - put this search on your site - FREE!