Sadly, NATO actually needs America. Despite Russia's economy being tiny - their military spending is huge

[RDKirk]

And to ensure they stay within their borders, we placed NATO countries all around Russia and invited India to the country club. If this isn't blatant in your face, Russia, I don't know what is.

In your own words, why was that a problem?
I know why Russia thinks being contained within their own borders is a problem, but why do you think being contained within their own borders is a problem?

 

[RDKirk]

Umm...except the fact that the enemy, the Soviet Union, hasn't existed for over a quarter century.

Russia is still Russia, and always has been.

 

[RDKirk]

But the topic here is NATO, not WWII. There was a time when NATO was necessary and a good idea. It hasn't been necessary for a good while now, and only serves to agitate Russia.

So, you think the countries that had been under Soviet domination rushing to join NATO, and even Sweden and Finland finally joining NATO was done just to agitate Russia.

Maybe living next door to Russia they know Russia better than you do.

 

[Laodicean60]

Russian tank invading Ukraine's land is not “ living in peacefully”.

Neither is stationeing NATO countries around Russia's borders.

 

[RDKirk]

Neither is stationeing NATO countries around Russia's borders.

Nobody is "stationing" NATO countries around Russia's borders.

The countries that happen to be on Russia's borders know Russia. They know they are in danger of Russian "adventures."

 

[Laodicean60]

I know why Russia thinks being contained within their own borders is a problem, but why do you think being contained within their own borders is a problem?

It's wrong to antagonize a nuclear superpower. We also need to contain China; shall we invite Taiwan into NATO?

 

[Laodicean60]

Nobody is "stationing" NATO countries around Russia's borders.

The countries that happen to be on Russia's borders know Russia. They know they are in danger of Russian "adventures."

Oh yes, we are when you invite countries or accept countries into NATO on Russian border, it's stationing. See, we all forget that Putin wanted them to be neutral, but NATO's disrespect for Russia wouldn't allow it. What would be wrong with a neutral Ukraine?

 

[durangodawood]

It's wrong to antagonize a nuclear superpower. We also need to contain China; shall we invite Taiwan into NATO?

No its wrong to let everyone know that once you have nuclear weapons you can run roughshod over whoever you want with no consequences.

 

[RDKirk]

Oh yes, we are when you invite countries or accept countries into NATO on Russian border, it's stationing. See, we all forget that Putin wanted them to be neutral, but NATO's disrespect for Russia wouldn't allow it. What would be wrong with a neutral Ukraine?

The reason they accepted the invitation is because they know Russia.

And notice that Sweden and Finland did remain neutral until recently, which indicates they consider Putin a greater threat than even the Soviet Union had been.

 

[wing2000]

Russia is still Russia, and always has been.

Putin is a product of the Cold War (KGB officer in E. Germany when the Berlin wall fell)....and has vowed to restore the Russian Empire....which includes Ukraine.....

Vladimir Putin's formative German years

Anyone who wants to understand Vladimir Putin needs to know what happened to him on a night in Dresden in 1989.

www.bbc.com

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

But the topic here is NATO, not WWII. There was a time when NATO was necessary and a good idea. It hasn't been necessary for a good while now, and only serves to agitate Russia.

The United States and NATO cannot allow Russia to dictate their defense strategies. Letting Russia decide who can join NATO undermines its purpose and gives Russia control over the defense strategies of 34 countries.

Which aspect of NATO action do you find unnecessary or problematic?

 

[RDKirk]

But the topic here is NATO, not WWII. There was a time when NATO was necessary and a good idea. It hasn't been necessary for a good while now, and only serves to agitate Russia.

NATO was not necessary for WWII.

 

[RDKirk]

It's wrong to antagonize a nuclear superpower. We also need to contain China; shall we invite Taiwan into NATO?

Well, it's certainly cowardly to kowtow to a nuclear superpower.

But I think now we have to go back to China's old concept that the US is just a "paper tiger."

 

[Chesterton]

Russia is still Russia, and always has been.

Not true. Russia was not Russia under the Soviets. It went from a Christian nation to a nation which murdered priests and destroyed churches.

So, you think the countries that had been under Soviet domination rushing to join NATO, and even Sweden and Finland finally joining NATO was done just to agitate Russia.

No, not just to agitate Russia. To make money, and to get the U.S. to pay for their defense, even though there's nothing to defend against.

Maybe living next door to Russia they know Russia better than you do.

Maybe you should have some empathy for what the Russians feel. After 1990, Russia was never a threat to Europe until NATO just kept encroaching and encroaching. Russia and the West could have been friends, we should have been friends.

 

[Nithavela]

Oh yes, we are when you invite countries or accept countries into NATO on Russian border, it's stationing. See, we all forget that Putin wanted them to be neutral, but NATO's disrespect for Russia wouldn't allow it. What would be wrong with a neutral Ukraine?

Russia wants it's neighbours to be neutral so that it can take a bite out of them without repercussion whenever it pleases. Georgia was neutral, Afghanistan was neutral, and Ukraine wasn't part of NATO either. Only neighbouring countries that were in NATO were relatively safe from russian aggression, which is why Finland and Sweden joined NATO.

 

[Chesterton]

NATO was not necessary for WWII.

Yeah, we were all allies against Germany.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

No it means how far do folks want to see Trump go against Putin. No one seems to have an answer to that question when they reply to it. You for example made something up and attributed it to me, instead of actually answering the question.

President Trump should neither oppose nor support Putin, but instead follow the US foreign policy that has proven effective over the past 80 years. Maintain strong alliances with NATO and European allies while conveying to Russia that the US and NATO seek peaceful coexistence, provided that Russia respects its geographical boundaries.

 

[wing2000]

Maybe you should have some empathy for what the Russians feel. After 1990, Russia was never a threat to Europe until NATO just kept encroaching and encroaching. Russia and the West could have been friends, we should have been friends.

I can understand the Russian perspective, but I will never accept their concerns as a justification to invade and take territory.
NATO has never set foot in Russian territory nor would it. It was and is a defensive pact.

Russia has another choice:

Withdrawl their forces. Allow Ukraine to join NATO. And never attack a NATO member.

 

[Chesterton]

The United States and NATO cannot allow Russia to dictate their defense strategies. Letting Russia decide who can join NATO undermines its purpose and gives Russia control over the defense strategies of 34 countries.

Which aspect of NATO action do you find unnecessary or problematic?

NATO has no purpose. It's a dinosaur. It doesn't belong in the modern world.

 

[wing2000]

NATO has no purpose. It's a dinosaur. It doesn't belong in the modern world.

Putin's behavior past few years demonstrate otherwise. Ask an Estonian if they think NATO is not necessary.

Do you want to return back to a pre 1946 world when nations regularly engaged in territorial conflicts?