How should west respond to potential (likely) Russian invasion of Ukraine?

[skepticalbip]

Maybe Russia should be invited to join NATO.

Love this idea! However, it could be a small problem for Russia to qualify. The eligibility requirements to join NATO:
1. functioning democratic political system based on a market economy;
2. fair treatment of minority populations;
3. a commitment to resolve conflicts peacefully;
4. They must be good neighbors and respect sovereignty outside their borders.

I think that #1, 3, and 4 might be a challenge for Russia to adhere to!

That means the US should be made to quit NATO.

I'm O.K. with that. NATO accomplished it's purpose quite a while ago. NATO was formed to protect a Europe that had been devastated during WWII from the USSR that had built up a massive war industry and was expansionist. There is no longer a USSR and Europe has rebuilt. The E.U. has three times the population of Russia and Russia's economy is comparable to that of Italy.

Which raises the question, is there any reason that the U.S. should still be a member of NATO and be obligated to intervene in European disputes?

Changing the name doesn't get rid of the fact that they're nuclear armed and expansionist.

You completely missed the point. Currently NATO is nothing like it was intended to be. European countries were completely incapable of offering any resistance because of the destruction of their infrastructure and industry during WWII. The creation of NATO (with the U.S., Canada, etc.) was to protect them while they rebuilt. They have rebuilt and the E.U. is now more populous and have a greater economy than any likely adversary. They are now "big boys" and should be able to protect themselves.

NATO is now nothing like it was formed and the U.S. should reconsider if it wants to remain. Given the current NATO obligations, the U.S. would be required to militarily support Tajikistan if they had a border conflict with Afghanistan because Tajikistan is a member of NATO and Afghanistan isn't.

By withdrawing from NATO, the U.S. could decide to help some country if we saw just reason but would not be obligated, under treaty, to do so.

 

[Copernicus]

...
NATO is now nothing like it was formed and the U.S. should reconsider if it wants to remain. Given the current NATO obligations, the U.S. would be required to militarily support Tajikistan if they had a border conflict with Afghanistan because Tajikistan is a member of NATO and Afghanistan isn't.

By withdrawing from NATO, the U.S. could decide to help some country if we saw just reason but would not be obligated, under treaty, to do so

I think that you are wildly underestimating the ability of the EU, which is not a military alliance, to resist Russian expansionism, especially if they use the "divide and conquer" strategy that has worked so well since the time of Julius Caesar. Once Ukraine is absorbed, Moldova would probably also go, and pressure would be put on all of the former East European bloc to fall back in line with Russia. But for NATO membership, of course. And that's the point.

BTW, Tajikistan is not a member of NATO, and there would be no treaty obligation for the US to defend it if it were attacked by Afghanistan or anyone else. It is a member of the Russian-led CSTO, so Russia would be more likely to intervene.

 

[skepticalbip]

...
NATO is now nothing like it was formed and the U.S. should reconsider if it wants to remain. Given the current NATO obligations, the U.S. would be required to militarily support Tajikistan if they had a border conflict with Afghanistan because Tajikistan is a member of NATO and Afghanistan isn't.

By withdrawing from NATO, the U.S. could decide to help some country if we saw just reason but would not be obligated, under treaty, to do so

I think that you are wildly underestimating the ability of the EU, which is not a military alliance, to resist Russian expansionism,

Again that is pretty much my point. Why the hell doesn't the E.U. currently worry enough about their self-defense to join in a military alliance? They have discussed it but instead rely on U.S. protection through NATO. And even then, many do not even contribute their required financing, expecting the U.S. to pick up the slack. If not for the U.S. as a major supporter of NATO, they would develop their own defense force.

BTW, Tajikistan is not a member of NATO, and there would be no treaty obligation for the US to defend it if it were attacked by Afghanistan or anyone else. It is a member of the Russian-led CSTO, so Russia would be more likely to intervene.

My brain fart. Let's try a border conflict between Croatia and Serbia, or any other two countries, one in NATO and the other not, (that most people have no clue where they are) that have a border conflict. The U.S. through NATO is obligated to be militarily involved. But then Neocons do like that it gives them an excuse to commit U.S. troops to a lot more military conflicts than they could otherwise justify.

 

[barbos]

Russia can do whatever it wants within its own borders, including precautionary measures against fascist regime in Ukraine.

Ukraine isn't going to attack Russia. Your theory doesn't pass the laugh test.

Maybe, maybe not. But Georgia did.

 

[barbos]

Russia can do whatever it wants within its own borders, including precautionary measures against fascist regime in Ukraine.

Ukraine isn't going to attack Russia. Your theory doesn't pass the laugh test.

Yea, Ukraine won't attack. But I'm sure that there are some little green men attempting to attack Russia from Ukraine. Putin has become very predictable lately.

Only because they were told by NATO in no uncertain terms that they would be Georgia 2.0. if they attack.
Having said that, I still can't exclude ukrainian provocations asking for "minor" invasion.

 

[barbos]

Changing the name doesn't get rid of the fact that they’re we're nuclear armed and expansionist.

Fixed for you.

edited by moderator to clarify the “fixed for you” change

 

[barbos]

Personally, I prefer choice 1. Everyone gets to live and Russia need not be so paranoid anymore about weapons right on their border.....just like how the US felt during the 1960's Cuba missile crises.

Yeah, but who is going to buy F35s in that case? check and mate!

 

[barbos]

This article provides some color as to the propaganda barbos has to wad through at home. There are examples of what the media broadcasts today and after the annexation of Crimea.

Russian propaganda is rising in volume and vehemence. The themes of Western conspiracy and loathing are everywhere.

For the million's time. I don't really watch russian channels. So no need to wad through anything.
Having said that, russian viewers are way better informed about your point of view than vice versa. Basically all the crap being spewed here is transmitted and commented rather well. And even more, unlike free press US, in Russia alternative views are directly presented, albeit for entertainment purposes. There are hard-core ukrainian quasi-nazi, and pro-american americans there. These are highest ranking shows. To be fair they are there for beating mostly, but they voice your point of view. These shows are hard to watch, Basically Jerry Springer but with politicians and commentators.
Find me any pro-russia russian dude on TV in US. You can't. All your TV experts are hard-core neocons like Friedman and Hill. They sound very polite and knowledgeable but they are paid full of shit liars.

 

[Copernicus]

...I think that you are wildly underestimating the ability of the EU, which is not a military alliance, to resist Russian expansionism,

Again that is pretty much my point. Why the hell doesn't the E.U. currently worry enough about their self-defense to join in a military alliance? They have discussed it but instead rely on U.S. protection through NATO. And even then, many do not even contribute their required financing, expecting the U.S. to pick up the slack. If not for the U.S. as a major supporter of NATO, they would develop their own defense force.

The military alliance is NATO. Not every EU country belongs to NATO, but not every NATO member is an EU country. Those countries that feel it in their interest to join NATO do so, and the US is such a country. The US has extensive economic and cultural ties to Europe and a host of reasons for not wanting those ties to be disrupted or coopted by a hostile power. As for NATO funding, the situation has changed drastically in the past few years. Now there are at least 10 NATO members meeting their obligations, but the cost sharing formula is more complicated than it appears to be in popular press media, especially right wing news sources. I cannot agree with you that European nations would pick up the slack if the US withdrew, causing a catastrophic collapse of NATO infrastructure. Rather, I think that Russia would step in rather quickly to take advantage of a weakening of NATO power.

See

NATO: Which Countries Pay Their Share On Defence?​

BTW, Tajikistan is not a member of NATO, and there would be no treaty obligation for the US to defend it if it were attacked by Afghanistan or anyone else. It is a member of the Russian-led CSTO, so Russia would be more likely to intervene.

My brain fart. Let's try a border conflict between Croatia and Serbia, or any other two countries, one in NATO and the other not, (that most people have no clue where they are) that have a border conflict. The U.S. through NATO is obligated to be militarily involved. But then Neocons do like that it gives them an excuse to commit U.S. troops to a lot more military conflicts than they could otherwise justify.

NATO is not obligated to join in military conflicts that involve other NATO members unless they are attacked. If Croatia attacked Serbia, it would be on its own. If Serbia attacked Croatia, then NATO would be obligated to step in.

 

[Copernicus]

This article provides some color as to the propaganda barbos has to wad through at home. There are examples of what the media broadcasts today and after the annexation of Crimea.

Russian propaganda is rising in volume and vehemence. The themes of Western conspiracy and loathing are everywhere.

For the million's time. I don't really watch russian channels. So no need to wad through anything.
Having said that, russian viewers are way better informed about your point of view than vice versa. Basically all the crap being spewed here is transmitted and commented rather well. And even more, unlike free press US, in Russia alternative views are directly presented, albeit for entertainment purposes. There are hard-core ukrainian quasi-nazi, and pro-american americans there. These are highest ranking shows. Yo be fair they are there for beating mostly, but they voice your point of view. These shows are hard to watch, Basically Jerry Springer but with politicians and commentators.
Find me any pro-russia russian dude on TV in US. You can't. All your TV experts are hard-core neocons like Friedman and Hill. They sound very polite and knowledgeable but they are paid full of shit liars.

Absolutely untrue. The Russian media very selectively edit what they present to Russian viewers, because they are under pressure to adhere to government doctrine. That was the point of all those journalists getting harassed, attacked, and murdered in the past. The Russian press is largely cowed right now. The US and other Western media are not unbiased, but journalists don't fear being murdered or jailed for airing their opinions. A news organization like Fox News, which represents a major propaganda outfit for the political party that opposes the current US administration and often spouts propaganda from a hostile foreign power uncritically, would not be possible in Russia. Russia has laws in place to shut down opposition news organizations and political groups.

 

[Jarhyn]

Russia has laws in place to shut down opposition news organizations and political groups.

You remember when they jailed a bunch of girls for singing?

 

[barbos]

You remember when they jailed a bunch of girls for very bad singing?

Fixed for you

 

[barbos]

NATO is now nothing like it was formed and the U.S. should reconsider if it wants to remain. Given the current NATO obligations, the U.S. would be required to militarily support Tajikistan if they had a border conflict with Afghanistan because Tajikistan is a member of NATO and Afghanistan isn't.

Tajikistan is a member of NATO???

 

[TV and credit cards]

This article provides some color as to the propaganda barbos has to wad through at home. There are examples of what the media broadcasts today and after the annexation of Crimea.

Russian propaganda is rising in volume and vehemence. The themes of Western conspiracy and loathing are everywhere.

For the million's time. I don't really watch russian channels. So no need to wad through anything.

Excuse me. Until this thread, I haven’t read enough of your posts to know this. By the way, it’s it’s wade, not “wad”. My mistake.

Having said that, russian viewers are way better informed about your point of view than vice versa. Basically all the crap being spewed here is transmitted and commented rather well. And even more, unlike free press US, in Russia alternative views are directly presented, albeit for entertainment purposes. There are hard-core ukrainian quasi-nazi, and pro-american americans there. These are highest ranking shows. To be fair they are there for beating mostly, but they voice your point of view. These shows are hard to watch, Basically Jerry Springer but with politicians and commentators.

“Entertainment purposes”. Interesting. I’d like to learn more about this. I often have wanted more information to understand your position but have been hesitant to ask as I am an English only reader.

Find me any pro-russia russian dude on TV in US. You can't. All your TV experts are hard-core neocons like Friedman and Hill. They sound very polite and knowledgeable but they are paid full of shit liars.

While there are plenty of opinion for and against on many topics in the US, there are no pro-Russian voices on US media because Russia is pretty much settled opinion. Have you read the “Russian propaganda” article I linked? There is another article there about Russian oligarchs I found interesting. How are oligarchs viewed among the Russian people today?
You commented to me previously to seek news outside of the US and I am attempting to do just that. I don’t think Radio Free Europe and CEPA (US based) is what you had in mind but I’m working in that direction. If you can recommend any that support your opinion in English, I’d be happy to look into them.
My father is Russian or Rusyn. I haven’t been able to narrow it down. But I’d like to learn more without having wade through misleading opinion.

 

[barbos]

While there are plenty of opinion for and against on many topics in the US, there are no pro-Russian voices on US media because Russia is pretty much settled opinion.

Indeed, it's settled among neocons who are paid by Millitary Industrial Complex. People like Mearsheimer are not allowed to MSM, and forget about any pro-russian russian. Mearsheimer talked about that in his lecture.

 

[barbos]

Scandal in Germany. The head of their Navy was fired after he carelessly expressed his private opinion about this Ukraine debacle. Funny enough, he did not change his opinion during his apologies. Just an illustration that all these people have to lie to keep an appearance of unity and support of Ukraine.

«Крым не вернется». За что немецкого вице-адмирала уволили в течение суток - Газета.Ru

Главнокомандующий военно-морских сил Германии вице-адмирал Кай-Ахим Шенбах был вынужден уйти в отставку после того как заявил, что Крым никогда не вернется к Украине, а президент России Владимир Путин заслуживает уважения. Его слова осудили в Минобороны и МИДе ФРГ. В России к случившемуся...

www.gazeta.ru

Video of the admiral talking (in english)

 

[Elixir]

Having said that, russian viewers are way better informed about your point of view than vice versa.

Contradict yourself, much?
You don’t watch Russian propaganda tv, yet you know how those who do are “better informed”.
Ya sure ya betcha, comrade.
Your conditioning is evident.

 

[barbos]

Having said that, russian viewers are way better informed about your point of view than vice versa.

Contradict yourself, much?
You don’t watch Russian propaganda tv, yet you know how those who do are “better informed”.
Ya sure ya betcha, comrade.
Your conditioning is evident.

No, I don't contradict myself. I have watched these shows few times and made a conclusion based on that. American dude is always there.

 

[Elixir]

Yes you do contradict yourself.
As your conditioning is evident, these weak denials only affirm the propaganda-soaked nature of your given opinions.

 

[barbos]

Yes you do contradict yourself.
As your conditioning is evident, these weak denials only affirm the propaganda-soaked nature of your given opinions.

No, I don't contradict myself.