The following conversation appeared in a Comments section of a newspaper this morning and, as I was one of the antagonists (loosely speaking), I feel that it is acceptable to publish a slightly edited version here to permit, and extend, an anonymous Internet conversation.
Anonym A: ”...over the past few decades, NATO’s primary focus was on peacekeeping operations in distant places, rather than on its core function of territorial defence...But this attitude changed in 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea and launched secretive military incursions into Eastern Ukraine."
Excuse me? What's changed? Annexation of Crimea was a local, albeit unexpected move by Russia - ask the Crimean population how they feel about finally being a part of Russia and it will be a 87% approval rate. Yes, a crime is a crime, but weren't Kyev's actions towards the Crimean population since Ukraine's independence totally unacceptable? So, this "reason" may be dismissed.
Eastern Ukraine had been suffering the same attitude from the Ukrainian state as Crimea, including the constantly diminishing status of the Russian language in this practically Russian part of Ukraine.And then Maidan (in 2014) declared a total ban on use of the Russian language as the second official language in the country. That was way too much!
Again, this conflict has nothing [to do] with the safety of other European states.
So, as it appears, all this drum beat is about money. Russia's actions are just a convenient excuse!
Anonym B: It goes without saying that the slow, measured, and deliberate invasion by the USSR into the region of Slav, Turkic, Greek Crimea, makes the 87% vote by the Russian population unsurprising.
Anonym C: NATO is functionally dead. The U.S. is detaching itself from Europe, so Europe needs to learn to defend itself. As a start, it must (a) learn more about how Russian troll farms have infected European political discourse so that this menace can be effectively fought; (b) wean itself as quickly as possible from all Russian energy sources, so as to deprive Russia of valuable foreign exchange; and (c) separate itself from unhelpful U.S. influence as much as possible. The U.S. has become an enemy, not a friend.
Anonym B: (a) Goes without saying. (b) To "wean" is ungrammatical, but to reduce the influence of Russian energy sources is a sound idea, not withstanding the possibility that Russia could discover an alternate solution. (c) To describe the U.S. as an "enemy" based on the policies of the present President is another Liberalization ... simply put.
Anonym C: If by “functionally dead” you mean no longer dependable, you are spot on. Your 3-part plan, moving forward, I think is good, assuming that as Europe distances itself from the US, they likewise re-arm to fill that void. This is all unfortunately true. Putin has somehow (through illegal political funding - at a minimum) decapitated the GOP president and congressional leadership. Will the truth ever come out
Anonym B: It would be lacking foresight to "re-arm [sic] to fill that void". Russia's obvious tenacity regarding its desire to regain previous territory will make it quite possible to eventually cherry-pick the smaller nations regardless of their weaponization. The increasing Communism of Europe thus becomes a future threat to North America and ... the wheel turns once more.
Anonym B: The Plan (if you have not realized it) is for our great-grandchildren to experience a North America with a brutal Red Bear on the Atlantic side, and an inhumane Red Dragon on the Pacific side.
One could or must consider the history of NATO, what it has done, who it supposed to do and the power structure of the organization. It would appear the original purpose of NATO ended when the Soviet Union collapsed but such organizations do not have sunset clauses. It continued seeking a raison d'etre until now doing terrible things at the behest of America.
ReplyDeletePutin wants to see the end of it and he is maneuvering Trump to accomplish it. Trump will do what he is told by Putin and open Europe to subversive control by Putin. That will be the end of enlightenment in the Europe or what remains of it.
Britain and Canada will be out on a limb floating in the North Atlantic ready to be plucked by Trump and the Republican Party.
This is one of those turning points in history like the end of the Roman Empire, the French Revolution, the end of the British Empire when the relationships between people and social classes fractured. A new dark age may be beginning.
Interesting times, Bernie.
To your point, it could be said that it was as if NATO became a department of the U.N. but is unsuccessful because there would need to be a North Pacific treaty and, also, treaties in the southern hemisphere which would require the U.N. to become a power-sharing body and, there — lies the rub.
ReplyDeleteAt the moment, it is not so monumental that it should be described as a historic turning point ... unless The Donald wins a second term and is permitted to develop his difficult and problematical dream.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, in conclusion (I suspect) the United Nations must establish a investigative body to study the re-organization of NATO, and provide suggestions to develop a logical organization that avoids the continuing, politically-related, expansion that has, indeed, weakened its effectiveness.
The Mediterranean Sea is NOT part of the Atlantic Ocean. Therefore, countries with only Mediterranean coasts, e.g., Greece and Turkey, should, probably, be given, observer status only. Thus, NATO countries such as Canada and the USA, would not be mandated to assist in political unrest in Turkey or illegal emigration from Africa to Europe … or even Israel.
The UN should study the establishment of similar bodies in the areas of the other main oceans, Southern Atlantic (SATO), Southern (SoPTO) and Northern (NoPTO) Pacific (The latter being extremely sensitive at the moment and, thus, the most important). Each of these organizations would be represented within each other organization.
All countries not included would be offered observer status and, thus, the political expansionism, evident today, should be avoided .
A useful side-affect would be a beneficial association with global trade organizations but, the greatest benefit would be the inability of a veto from a politically, globally, powerful country effecting the world order … in the way the UN is weakened today.
You jump from NATO to the UN. I'd suggest the UN is incapable of becoming involved in NATO or SATO or any defensive acronym because it was established to obviate the need for defensive forces by diplomatically making war unnecessary. It could not establish defensive organizations ethically and, of course, it lacks competence to do anything effectively. I still belief the West is at a turning where NATO members must reassess their mandate without the USA and concentrate on military defense of the continent against Russia, Turkey and Iran while monitoring the USA and China as dangerous commercial competitors.
ReplyDelete