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.
