The future of NATO.

[tangosix]

Today we see a lot of internal argument within NATO, about what NATO should be and what role it should serve on the world stage. This has surfaced in the face of the Afghanistan occupation. It would not be unreasonable to assume that NATO will reform and re-invent itself to heal and emerge stronger. If not, it will only become weaker.

What are your thoughts on the future of NATO?

Personally I would not rule out that countries like South Korea and Japan were to be offered a place.

[Arfah]

If South Korea and Japan join, then Aus, NZ, Singapore, Malaysia would/should too. NATO would be a global organisation and a name change should have to occur.

[davey]

What are your thoughts on the future of NATO?

May it cease to exist.

[pacifist]

Sweden and Finland will propably join NATO soon.

[Sakop]

Russia will join NATO soon

[IronFinn]

Sweden and Finland will propably join NATO soon.

Not until the public opinion favors it. Politicians know better not to hang themselves with such a decision if the people doesn´t support that.

[nsp]

Russia will join NATO soon
NEVEЯ!
http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/7687/1256552479188.jpg

[Derbedeu]

NEVEЯ!
http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/7687/1256552479188.jpg

rofl Nice touch with the backwards R!

[nsp]

rofl Nice touch with the backwards R!
Actually "R" is the backwards "Я".:roll:

[Derbedeu]

:-(

.....

[Sakop]

Russia wants to be in NATO so they can get keyboards that do not write backwardsrofl

[Lestatz]

Actually "R" is the backwards "Я".:roll:
No. "R" is actually "P"

"Я" is something like "ya".

[shoora]

What are your thoughts on the future of NATO?
Best of all - to disappear? The UN must have all necessary military options at hand to deal with international security threats.
The NATO was never any better that Warshaw Treaty. Warshaw Treaty now history, so NATO is nothing but Cold War era relict and must also die.
Or otherwise, we must think, war was not finished?

[nsp]

No. "R" is actually "P"

"Я" is something like "ya".
I know, i just said whose characters are better.:)

[Derbedeu]

Best of all - to disappear? The UN must have all necessary military options at hand to deal with international security threats.

Yea sure. :roll:

So long as five nations have permanent vetoes, the UN will never be effective in keeping international security.

[sepheronx]

NATO is an anti-Russian relic. In todays day and age, the world is no longer split into two sides. It is now multi with all different problems. But once you have a NATO member picking fights with others, many are obliged to help them. Now with US trying to acquire many post-soviet countries whom the people are generally liked and like by the Russians, then it creates problems (Ukraine is in no position to join NATO, and never should). I mean, Germany and France both have good political and economical partnership with the Russians. I doubt they want to be in any position to piss them off.

Let the EU take care of Europe, USA take care of North America, and let Asia deal with itself.

[Derbedeu]

NATO is an anti-Russian relic. In todays day and age, the world is no longer split into two sides. It is now multi with all different problems. But once you have a NATO member picking fights with others, many are obliged to help them. Now with US trying to acquire many post-soviet countries whom the people are generally liked and like by the Russians, then it creates problems (Ukraine is in no position to join NATO, and never should). I mean, Germany and France both have good political and economical partnership with the Russians. I doubt they want to be in any position to piss them off.

Let the EU take care of Europe, USA take care of North America, and let Asia deal with itself.

NATO is a self defense pact that has managed to transcend the Cold War. While EU countries enjoy some sort of communal defense, there are other countries (Norway, Croatia, etc) that are not in the EU but benefit from knowing that they partake in defense organization such as NATO. NATO also offers a great opportunity for smaller nations to upgrade their armies as well as undergo training exercises that helps create a more effective fighting force.

I do not see how NATO is a threat, as it is only defensive in nature. The only time NATO can act is when it is attacked under Article 5. Any other action requires a unanimous decision from all 28 member states.

Also, hypothetically speaking, if Ukraine wished to join NATO, I do not see why they should not be allowed. Hell, if Russia was sincere in wanting to join NATO, they would most likely be accepted as well. Who knows, perhaps 30-50 years down the line both Ukraine and Russia will be within NATO.

I do agree with you in that I would like to see some sort of a cohesive EU force as part of NATO, rather than 27 separate nations, but I'm afraid that's quite far in the future as of now.

[sepheronx]

NATO is a self defense pact that has managed to transcend the Cold War. While EU countries enjoy some sort of communal defense, there are other countries (Norway, Croatia, etc) that are not in the EU but benefit from knowing that they partake in defense organization such as NATO. NATO also offers a great opportunity for smaller nations to upgrade their armies as well as undergo training exercises that helps create a more effective fighting force.

I do not see how NATO is a threat, as it is only defensive in nature. The only time NATO can act is when it is attacked under Article 5. Any other action requires a unanimous decision from all 28 member states.

Also, hypothetically speaking, if Ukraine wished to join NATO, I do not see why they should not be allowed. Hell, if Russia was sincere in wanting to join NATO, they would most likely be accepted as well. Who knows, perhaps 30-50 years down the line both Ukraine and Russia will be within NATO.

I do agree with you in that I would like to see some sort of a cohesive EU force as part of NATO, rather than 27 separate nations, but I'm afraid that's quite far in the future as of now.

When Ukraine has some sort of Pact with Russia, or other countries like Khazakstan and alike, then what point would their be in joining NATO? It is as if it is an act of double standards.

NATO in my opinion, on how I see things based on news and what I read even on this site, is used a lot as a political agenda as an act of so called "self-defense" bases that are wanting to surround former enemy countries like Russia. What is the point? It may not be directly US's fault, but there are many countries in NATO whom are very Russophobic and want nothing better but then to hinder their neighbor (Russia, whom is also their enemy) useless in combat, so that other political movements can happen within the country. In other words, when Russia is definately needed by the world, they can be underminded by forigeners just because they would not be capable of defending themselves.

Edit: Example is Georgia. Presedent Sakasedouche always touted around on the news with NATO flag in the background, and they were assured defense if agression came to them. Look what happened? But it still gave the president that false sense of hope and security, almost allowing him to try anything.

What would happen if two nato nations go head to head? I mean, yeah, you can keep on buying out the presidents and keeping peace, but is that going to work for everyone and forever? No. There are countries whom are in NATO who hate each other. Turkey and Greece just over Cyprus is an example. Accept more people, more problems can occure.

[davey]

Let the EU take care of Europe, USA take care of North America, and let Asia deal with itself.

Good point, why is Uncle Sam still needed on European soil? Europe should really start to look after itself.

The world does not need NATO. This behemoth's only purpose is to expand itself and swallow more territory, compromising the sovereignty of lesser members and projecting excessive power. And this seems to mainly serve the USA's geopolitical designs and to provide markets for its weapons manufacturers. Soon half the world will be in NATO, with those on the outside tagged as some "axis of evil" or something. Excessive power projection form one side is surely not good for stability.

We've seen how a unipolar world with too much power vested in one sole superpower resulted in a totally immoral and unjustified invasion of Iraq. Such is the power of arrogance. Now imagine the arrogance after Australasia, some Asian states and more East European states have joined NATO. I hope we don't ever see that day. Europe should kick Uncle Sam off its territory and NATO should do the right thing and dissolve itself peacefully.

[Elbs]

Hehe i want what you're smoking.

[davey]

Yes, put it in your pipe and smoke it.

[sepheronx]

Hehe i want what you're smoking.
Instead of one liners or quick remarks, a debate or your standing with your views would actually be helpful (especially when you disagree with us).

I just don't see the point of lets say a country like Ukraine to be in NATO when they can join the CSTO (which is right beside them, rather then NATO that starts from far west, and extends to Poland). Why would Ukraine see CSTO as bad and NATO as good, when both are pretty much on the same basis.

Like davey said, we could get countries who think at this point, they can conclude that another country that is not in the orginzation as "evil" simply because it isn't giving up its nuclear weapons and or not obiding to what they want, thus can convince the rest of the crew in the same orginization, to aid them in their agressive stance.

Now, NATO isn't all bad. I mean, Germany and France seem to hold a good position on the world stage without throwing NATO around as a political tool. I can name a couple of countries who do throw it around (especially in the case of the arctic cirlce debate atm). But I see countries like France and Germany leaning towards their own defense and structure of security then continuing to follow the path of NATO.

Edit: Any anyway, I see it as better having an neutral stance. One idea is that your not obliged to go into a conflict that isn't your own. And two, you still can have good relations on both sides. As long as you have your own sufficient defense forces in your country, I doubt anyone would attack (especially when your a large economic partner for both sides).

[Derbedeu]

Edit: Example is Georgia. Presedent Sakasedouche always touted around on the news with NATO flag in the background, and they were assured defense if agression came to them. Look what happened? But it still gave the president that false sense of hope and security, almost allowing him to try anything.

Sakashvilli is not in NATO though. I do not see how you can blame his actions on NATO. If anything, Georgian inclusion into NATO could have led to a peaceful solution of the matter as the other countries would have restrained him. Honestly speaking, what NATO country has taken unilateral action against Russia? The stability that NATO would bring to the area would be beneficial to a nation like Russia, with it's large borders.


What would happen if two nato nations go head to head? I mean, yeah, you can keep on buying out the presidents and keeping peace, but is that going to work for everyone and forever? No. There are countries whom are in NATO who hate each other. Turkey and Greece just over Cyprus is an example. Accept more people, more problems can occure.First, how does that threaten Russia? Secondly, while the Turkish-Greek relationship isn't exactly friendly, it hasn't broken out into war either.

[sepheronx]

Sakashvilli is not in NATO though. I do not see how you can blame his actions on NATO. If anything, Georgian inclusion into NATO could have led to a peaceful solution of the matter as the other countries would have restrained him. Honestly speaking, what NATO country has taken unilateral action against Russia? The stability that NATO would bring to the area would be beneficial to a nation like Russia, with it's large borders.
How do you know for sure? Georiga would be given the OK to police the whole area of Abkhazia and South Ossetia when neither or want to be part of the country. Small incursians could also occure. And as for it not being NATO's fault, not directly; indirectly, yes. The promise of NATO membership and total defense from agression gave the president this false sense of hope. Which to already I made mention of.

First, how does that threaten Russia? Secondly, while the Turkish-Greek relationship isn't exactly friendly, it hasn't broken out into war either.
Yeah, but is cease fire going to last forever? Remember, things happen quickly and things can change in less then a decade. So don't expect eternal peace. Empires rise, empires fall. Always has been, always will be.


Yeap............................

[Elbs]

Soon half the world will be in NATO.
North Atlantic Treaty Organization.


We've seen how a unipolar world with too much power vested in one sole superpower resulted in a totally immoral and unjustified invasion of Iraq.
NATO did not invade Iraq.


Such is the power of arrogance. Now imagine the arrogance after Australasia, some Asian states and more East European states have joined NATO.
North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Where you get these fantasies from, I don't know.

[Derbedeu]

Come on, you seriously cannot blame NATO for the actions of one man. If (hypothetically) Lukashenko attacks Poland, thinking he's safe from retaliation thanks to his military pact with Russia, I'm not gonna blame Russia, I'm gonna blame Lukashenko, just as I would blame any other idiot for starting such a war.

As for your second point, well then, I don't see why you should worry about NATO's expansion, after all, " Empires rise, empires fall. Always has been, always will be." So why worry? http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/7117/biggrind.gif (http://img98.imageshack.us/i/biggrind.gif/)

[Derbedeu]

North Atlantic Treaty Organization.


NATO did not invade Iraq.


North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Where you get these fantasies from, I don't know.

Elbs, why must you always let facts get in the way of a good discussion? http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/4917/shakeg.gif (http://img62.imageshack.us/i/shakeg.gif/)

[saturnin]

Best of all - to disappear? The UN must have all necessary military options at hand to deal with international security threats.
The NATO was never any better that Warshaw Treaty. Warshaw Treaty now history, so NATO is nothing but Cold War era relict and must also die.
Or otherwise, we must think, war was not finished?

please study something about what NATO and Warshav pact defended. Than study about how those institution cooperated (for example there read comments from czechoslovak participant:http://www.php.isn.ethz.ch/collections/colltopic.cfm?lng=en&id=15706
or polish: http://www.php.isn.ethz.ch/collections/colltopic.cfm?lng=en&id=15708

NATO makes perfect sense for countries like Poland, Czechs etc. and also for original founders, no need to stop something what works in promoting cooperation, exchange of experience, standardise logistic etc., NATO doesn´t have to die

[Karaahmetoglu]

Rasmussen: Georgia and Ukraine to become NATO members

22.10.09 18:19

Ander Fogh Rasmussen presented NATO`s open-door policy at the ministerial held in Bratislava, Slovakia on Thursday. The NATO Secretary General said, the alliance adheres to the decisions adopted at the 2008 Bucharest Summit. Rasmussen sees NATO`s role in helping the countries concerned to meet the criteria needed for integration into the alliance, and pointed out that each country should be judged by its own merits.
NATO Secretary General delivered his position about the new conception of the alliance at the ministerial. He said, at present Georgia has two instruments for relationship with the alliance - the Georgia-NATO commission and the Annual National Plan.- Rasmussen said that the topical problem for the alliance at present is security and peace in Afghanistan. As for the relations with Russia, Rasmussen said he would arrive in Moscow soon and discuss the improvement of relations with the Russian authorities, however, added that the improvement of relations should not take place at the expense of the basic principles of the alliance.
`I think, it would be beneficial, it would be good for all of us, if we could create a more friendly atmosphere. I think, an improve of relationship between NATO and Russia would also serve the purpose to tell the Russians that NATO is not an enemy of Russia. NATO is not directed against Russia`, Rasmussen said. He added, according to the Bucharest Summit decision, Georgia and Ukraine will eventually become members of the alliance. They need to meet the necessary criteria for that. The Secretary General said, the alliance has created commissions for Georgia and Ukraine and is working with the two countries in terms of developing reforms and self-defence.
http://www.rustavi2.com.ge/news/news_text.php?id_news=34107&pg=1&im=main&ct=0&wth=

Anyone have any more on this? Other news sites?

[Rossdobby]

NATO should be renamed and redone with new mandates and goals.
Im thinking like the FWTO which would mean Free World Treaty Organization. NATO was created to counter the Soviets and now that ship has sailed we won. However now we have non state organizations like Al-quida that can operate anywhere and hit us whenever. So to say we won't need NATO is not smart. We still have many enemies and the only way to truly beat them is to join together and fight as one united force.

Instead of countries making commitments to NATO whenever its needed they should have a smaller force that would be trained along side other NATO forces. Same equipment and clearly defined RoE's. If every member state commited 2000 troops we would have 50,000 NATO soldiers that would know how to work together much better.

[rafus]

NATO makes perfect sense for countries like Poland, Czechs etc. and also for original founders, no need to stop something what works in promoting cooperation, exchange of experience, standardise logistic etc., NATO doesn´t have to die

As a Pole, I fully agree!

[chavaledeni]

NATO is a self defense pact that has managed to transcend the Cold War. While EU countries enjoy some sort of communal defense, there are other countries (Norway, Croatia, etc) that are not in the EU but benefit from knowing that they partake in defense organization such as NATO. NATO also offers a great opportunity for smaller nations to upgrade their armies as well as undergo training exercises that helps create a more effective fighting force.

I do not see how NATO is a threat, as it is only defensive in nature. The only time NATO can act is when it is attacked under Article 5. Any other action requires a unanimous decision from all 28 member states.

Also, hypothetically speaking, if Ukraine wished to join NATO, I do not see why they should not be allowed. Hell, if Russia was sincere in wanting to join NATO, they would most likely be accepted as well. Who knows, perhaps 30-50 years down the line both Ukraine and Russia will be within NATO.

I do agree with you in that I would like to see some sort of a cohesive EU force as part of NATO, rather than 27 separate nations, but I'm afraid that's quite far in the future as of now.
NATO bombing of Serbia in 99.

[Rossdobby]

We need to Create a NATO army with soldiers from every member nation. Backed with air power and naval power. Each country could easily manage to give 2,000 to 5,000 Troops. If we trained these soldiers together they would become a much more effective force.

[lightfire]

We need to Create a NATO army with soldiers from every member nation. .

that's what NRF is for


Backed with air power and naval power. Each country could easily manage to give 2,000 to 5,000 Troops. If we trained these soldiers together they would become a much more effective force

tell that to Luxembourg, Iceland etc - not every NATO member is as large as US, or powerfull enough to muster so much troops during peacetime just to have a standing army. And the way I see it - there's no need to have a large standing army. The NRF, if it works is fine, the national units from each member state designated to NATO operations during war time could also prove itself as an argument. If there's a war - every NATO member delegates their designated units. ISAF hardly falls under this category.

The Russian fanboys crying here "no need for nato, go home, it's russophobic" means very little to NATO itself or to anyone else as a matter of fact, except maybe only one thing - NATO is a proven organization, changing with time, evolving, and there's nothing better on the table to offer. Don't fix if it ain't broken.

[Rossdobby]

Even if we just Trained soldiers together it would help our effectiveness in Campaigns like Afghanistan. If Every Country there could act as one large army it would be so much better.

[~~~~]

Best of all - to disappear? The UN must have all necessary military options at hand to deal with international security threats.
The NATO was never any better that Warshaw Treaty. Warshaw Treaty now history, so NATO is nothing but Cold War era relict and must also die.
Or otherwise, we must think, war was not finished?

it was better. just because at the end it was the NATO side that won. and till today it ensures us that no other oppressive regime can be a threat for democratic countries. nor freely grow and expand under our eyes.
so get used to think that it is not going to disappear any soon. why? because there's a need for the role it plays. no matter the name and its history.


and UN? forget it. it a dead man already. it's good enough only to send Angelina Jolie to meet starving children somewhere in the third world. but certainly not to provide security to the democratic world with antidemcoratic powers having permanent veto card on security issues. forget it.

ti

[Unixnut]

NATO bombing of Serbia in 99.

x2, Plus if I remember correctly, not all 28 NATO members agreed on that action (AFAIK Greece refused to support, partake or even offer it's airspace to the operation).

[ex Strathcona]

Let the EU take care of Europe, USA take care of North America, and let Asia deal with itself.


you know... personally i would prefer to see Canada take care of it's fair share of the continent as well, no need to sit back and let the US pull their weight and ours along with them, otherwise whats the point of having a border.

[Kilgor]

NATO is an anti-Russian relic. In todays day and age, the world is no longer split into two sides. It is now multi with all different problems.

Russia says must have nuclear parity with U.S.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=125063

[davey]

NATO did not invade Iraq.

I know. I just mentioned the Iraq invasion as an example of the arrogance of too much power. In this case the culprit was the US and Britain, as we all know to well.

[MaverickCowboy]

i thought this was a Pro-U.S. Nato board.

[lightfire]

i thought his was a Pro-U.S. Nato board.

Butthurt fanboys are taking over. In the line of defense of the motherland, you see..

[davey]

North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Yes. With the emphasis on North Atlantic. Tell that to politicians, think tanks and military types in the USA, the EU and NATO that kep insisting on the inclusion of Georgia and Ukraine in NATO. When last did you look at a map?


North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Where you get these fantasies from, I don't know.

Likewise. Many politicians and American think tanks have mentioned the possibility that Japan, Australia, New Zealand and a few South Eastern Asia states should join. Although there are no firm plans, it exposes a state of mind that I absolutely abhor. The term "Broad Spectrum Dominance" is one that has been used very often in the USA with regard to military matters. Think about the message it sends out to the rest of the world. Why is this necessary? Military power should be in line with real threats. When it is used for geopolitical purposes and a simple desire for dominance, it almost always leads to disaster later on.

[MaverickCowboy]

Butthurt fanboys are taking over. In the line of defense of the motherland, you see..

Soon this will be a pro everything> usa board.

we already have people such as the likes of Ordie.

Anti-Capitalist, Anti-Dissenting views from left, Obamanites, and and and other asshats flooding the board.

[Jack Daniels]

NATO should disappear so Russia could pwn Poland and some of those Baltic states again, they are annoying, crying non-stop. Hopefully they will visit Switak and smash his PC as well. rofl

[Jack Daniels]

In a way i think it would've been better if Georgia was a NATO member when Russia owned them. NATO clearly wouldn't attack Russia unless they would want to get wiped off the map. So, when other NATO members would see that NATO is useless they would start leaving.

[RuneX2]

NATO should be shorn all its member nations that are unwilling to lift their fair share of an obvious mission like Afghanistan.

[Elbs]

Yes. With the emphasis on North Atlantic. Tell that to politicians, think tanks and military types in the USA, the EU and NATO that kep insisting on the inclusion of Georgia and Ukraine in NATO. When last did you look at a map?


Perhaps you should do a bit of reading. Try the NATO website and see the section regarding the Tropic of Cancer. You'll see that both Georgia and Ukraine fall into this category and could conceivably be part of NATO, whereas other countries would not...

[Elbs]

In a way i think it would've been better if Georgia was a NATO member when Russia owned them. NATO clearly wouldn't attack Russia unless they would want to get wiped off the map. So, when other NATO members would see that NATO is useless they would start leaving.

And risk starting a major conflict? How about stop thinking like 15 year old fanboy and start reasoning for a change. I'm sure wars seem pretty cool to you reading stuff on mp.net, but isn't as dandy for the Russian and Georgian families that lost loved ones in that conflict.

[Jack Daniels]

And risk starting a major conflict?

Well, that was just a thought but yes. If Russia really wanted to see the end of NATO that's what they should probably do. Somehow i really doubt that U.S. and other NATO countries would attack Russia after that, after all, most of Americans don't even know where Eastern Europe is.
Also, Russia doesn't have to attack someone openly, they can orchestrate their own 9/11 and then blame someone.
Btw, this is just a thought, no need to go ape****.

[davey]

Perhaps you should do a bit of reading. Try the NATO website and see the section regarding the Tropic of Cancer. You'll see that both Georgia and Ukraine fall into this category and could conceivably be part of NATO, whereas other countries would not...

Well, this behemoth was called into life by the North Atlantic Treaty which included Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, United Kingdom and United States. It made perfect sense at the time and there was a valis purpose for it.

It was then expanded to include Greece, Turkey, West Germany, Spain, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Albania, Croatia and Bulgaria. Many of these states have nothing to do with the North Atlantic and the original purpose of NATO. I suppose it was then that the 'North Atlantic' criterion was dropped in favour of the 'Tropic of Cancer'. As a next step we drop 'Tropic of Cancer' in favour of 'Equator'. Why not, a precedent has already been created (and it's easy to rewrite a website).

The expansion from 'North Atlantic' to 'Tropic of Cancer' exactly illustrates my argument about NATO's perennial expansion. Good point. Thanks for drawing everybody's attention to it.

[Afro-European]

NATO was an alliance to defend against the USSR. Now it's lost it's purpose, and is trying to find new meaning. Hence the expansion into E. Europe, the political problems plaguing the Afghan deployments, reluctance to commit troops, etc. etc. etc. At this point NATO has essentially become a westernizing tool/babysitter for the ex-WarPac states, which view NATO membership as their golden ticket. It allows them to cut down their militaries, and essentially place much of both the political and military burden of their own defense on the Cold War era alliance.I think this is where the real problem is. NATO needs to redefine it's purpose and goal, create a new mission statement. Based on that mission statement it needs to redefine criteria for membership, and essentially cut down it's recruiting spree which is leaving it not only overstretched, but too large for any decisive action, as it's various members will simply not be able to agree on anything...or disban it.

As for Russia seeing Nato as its main threat,well there is no state on Earth who theoretically could oppose NATO beside Russia.

[tangosix]

When Ukraine has some sort of Pact with Russia, or other countries like Khazakstan and alike, then what point would their be in joining NATO? It is as if it is an act of double standards.



Urkaine does not want a pact with Russia. Ukraine, just like 90% of the rest of the former soviet states want to become more western, because they want more freedom, democracy and economical growth. If they have pact with the corrupt elite in Moscow, they will receive neither.

[Elbs]

The expansion from 'North Atlantic' to 'Tropic of Cancer' exactly illustrates my argument about NATO's perennial expansion. Good point. Thanks for drawing everybody's attention to it.

Seems you're missing the point. There hasn't been any expansion to the Tropic of Cancer. I mentioned it because of its implications with Article 5 of the Treaty. I'll leave it as that as it seems you keep repeating yourself so knock yourself out with the text if you wish

http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/treaty.htm

[igorvasilevsky]

Urkaine does not want a pact with Russia. Ukraine, just like 90% of the rest of the former soviet states want to become more western, because they want more freedom, democracy and economical growth. If they have pact with the corrupt elite in Moscow, they will receive neither.
Prove it by any source - poll or something.. People and leadership is not the same.
They wished more freedom, democracy and economical growth in 2004, but Ushenko who promised it, just like other US puppets, ruined all of this - freedom, democracy and economic.

[tangosix]

Prove it by any source - poll or something.. People and leadership is not the same.
They wished more freedom, democracy and economical growth in 2004, but Ushenko who promised it, just like other US puppets, ruined all of this - freedom, democracy and economic.


The orange revolution is proof. Also, it takes time to fix 50 years of crazyness.

Look at Poland, they are doing better than than ever. Poland must be a torn in your eye comrad.

[igorvasilevsky]

The orange revolution is proof. Also, it takes time to fix 50 years of crazyness.

Look at Poland, they are doing better than than ever. Poland must be a torn in your eye comrad.
Orange revolution is a proof of false hopes by mr. Ushenko about "freedom, democracy, economic", nothing else.
I repeat: give me results of POLLS or other statistics. All that you said is just a delusional bla bla bla, if you can't prove it.

[sepheronx]

The orange revolution is proof. Also, it takes time to fix 50 years of crazyness.

Look at Poland, they are doing better than than ever. Poland must be a torn in your eye comrad.

source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Yushchenko)



Public opinion polls

Victor Yushchenko's support in Ukraine according to recent public opinion polls has plummeted, from a high of 52% following his election in 2004 to below 4%, with most commentators writing off his chances of being reelected to a second term of office.[35] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Yushchenko#cite_note-34)[36] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Yushchenko#cite_note-35)[37] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Yushchenko#cite_note-36) According to a public opinion poll conducted by FOM-Ukraine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOM-Ukraine) in September/October 2009 88.5% of those polled did not support the actions of Yushchenko as President, while 6.7% welcomed them.[38] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Yushchenko#cite_note-37)Enough proof? I mean, a man who you claim that the orange revolution is a success, should have a much more popularity vote then 6.7%, no?


Urkaine does not want a pact with Russia. Ukraine, just like 90% of the rest of the former soviet states want to become more western, because they want more freedom, democracy and economical growth. If they have pact with the corrupt elite in Moscow, they will receive neither.

But with US, they would? I mean, in what case could US provide that would provide "better" democracy, then what they had before Yuko? I mean, the man destroyed industries, could not provide even the funds to feed his troops one month. Nor could he provide enough funds for energy. Goes to show that his deplomacy, be it given to him from funds from the USA or not, he ruind the country. Shaka also ruined Georgia. He could have gotten the two breakaway nations by friendly negotiation, yet he attacked and killed many. I for one find him a monster, and should be shot. I am glad I live in Canada with the freedom I have. But I know for a fact, even without NATO, I can live with this freedom. So it is kind of moot based point there buddy. These so called "coloured Revolutions" are nothing but a joke and mean nothing or benifit nothing to the people, but to another nation that is far-far away. Makes no logical sense. Only NATO members find it logical?

[Switek]

NATO should disappear so Russia could pwn Poland and some of those Baltic states again, they are annoying, crying non-stop. Hopefully they will visit Switak and smash his PC as well. rofl


Take a pill, before it's not too late...

http://www.2000greetings.com/chill_pill.jpg

[sepheronx]

Take a pill, before it's not too late...


Do they come in Enima forms?

[davey]

Ukraine is a divided country anyway. It is split in the middle with a large undecided bloc. Therefore it is difficult to generalize and say Ukraine wants this or that. But two things are certain: the Orange Revolution is no success judging by Yushchenko's popularity, and the majority does not want NATO membership. What I find troubling about this drive from the West to bring Ukraine into the NATO fold is that they were pushing hard for it knowing full well that it's not supported by the majority, and that it would cause extreme tensions in the Crimea. Yet they persisted. In my book that is the attitude of an aggressive, arrogant and expansionist organisation.

[tea drinker]

Soon this will be a pro everything> usa board.

we already have people such as the likes of Ordie.

Anti-Capitalist, Anti-Dissenting views from left, Obamanites, and and and other asshats flooding the board.
Dunno.... I think we have to discuss things and find balance. I think you will find the vast majority of peoplez here pro US, but they don't let that cloud their judgment about what's fair. If they are unwilling to accept what some wall street wanker in a suit tells US families what hardships they have to go through to give the capitalists Czars their profits so much the better.

NATO is a security organisation, not every expansion heightens our security. We also have to deal with fiscal realities of today and what expansions would cost etc.

[Jack Daniels]

I think you will find the vast majority of peoplez here pro US.

I disagree but even if that was true it's because the other half get banned everyday.

[davey]

NATO is a security organisation, not every expansion heightens our security. We also have to deal with fiscal realities of today and what expansions would cost etc.

Sure. Although NATO expansion serves the US weapons manufacturers, I think on balance the US overpays heavily for its 'protection of Europe' when compared to the influence and economic benefits it gains from this. At least, many US tax payers are starting to think along those lines.

I think the time has come for Europe to become politically stronger, more sovereign and pick up the complete bill for European security. NATO has no place in such a scenario. A looser alliance between the USA and Europe would make more sense.

[tangosix]

source

Enough proof? I mean, a man who you claim that the orange revolution is a success, should have a much more popularity vote then 6.7%, no?

The masses expectations and reality are two different things. Only a fool would expect the situation to become immediately better. I.e the general public is indeed pretty stupid.




But with US, they would?

With the US and EU. Look at Poland as an example. Remarkable growth. It's obvious to most that a free market echonomy with less corruption and a stabile political system is preferred over the ogligarchy(sp?) thats in Russia. Russia still strongarms its neighbors, and its not a mystery its former subjects would like to get as far away as possible.

[RomanKL]

Just curious: would you like to see Russia as NATO member or not and why?

[Switek]

Just curious: would you like to see Russia as NATO member or not and why?

Yes I would. Even if it'd decrease, in some extent, US dominance in the pact.

Having Russia as an ally would increase the safety sphere in the world.

[tangosix]

Me? I'd like to see Russia as a NATO member, because there is absolutely no reason to why they should be considered a threat, and absolutely no reason why Russia should consider NATO as a threat. Russia will strenghten its ties with the west via trade, and will hopefully move towards the west as china and India grows stronger, and the nostalgia for the lost Russian empire is gone.

[Difool]

Yes I would. Even if it'd decrease, in some extent, US dominance in the pact.

Having Russia as an ally would increase the safety sphere in the world.

But one thing you have to be aware of: The bigger the alliance grows the harder unity is to maintain.

It happened never before, but I'm not sure what would going to happen (god forbid) if member states are gonna lead war against each other?
Is the NATO a proper tool to prevent that? Could it split the NATO?

[Switek]

But one thing you have to be aware of: The bigger the alliance grows the harder unity is to maintain.

It happened never before, but I'm not sure what would going to happen (god forbid) if member states are gonna lead war against each other?
Is the NATO a proper tool to prevent that? Could it split the NATO?

Russia in NATO would change the pact totally, first of all in decision making process, but I believe it's worth it.

Look at the Cyprus conflict, I wonder how it would end if Turkey and Greece weren't in NATO...