Abandon NATO in favour of a mutual security organisation?
Discussion
Radical suggestion (maybe to late): instead of NATO, which was originally formed to protect the world against the soviets, come up with a new org that stands for mutual protection of everyone. I know that sounds like a strange idea, but since the collapse of the SU and the end of the cold war we have generally had reasonably good relations with Russia. Yes, we have different standards and ideas but we have learned to live with them. The original raison d'être of NATO as the anti-soviet (or Russian) organisation is (or was, until recently) no longer relevant, to some degree.
Russia has always seen NATO as a threat, given its origins. It's ironic that we see it as a peacekeeping organisation - the more members that join, the safer they all are. Russia doesn't see it that way..
If the situation was reversed, and the CSTO was to advance to the west across Europe, we would also feel threatened.
IMO what the world needs is for everyone (inc Russia and China) to be a member of a global agreement to repel ANY invading country.
Am I mad to suggest such a thing?
Russia has always seen NATO as a threat, given its origins. It's ironic that we see it as a peacekeeping organisation - the more members that join, the safer they all are. Russia doesn't see it that way..
If the situation was reversed, and the CSTO was to advance to the west across Europe, we would also feel threatened.
IMO what the world needs is for everyone (inc Russia and China) to be a member of a global agreement to repel ANY invading country.
Am I mad to suggest such a thing?
such things are fine in theory, but when push comes to shove no nation wants to involve their troops in a spat
3000 miles away.
we learned this from the league of nations, who failed to protect poorer league members when japan, italy and germany started expanding their empires in the 1920/30s.
3000 miles away.
we learned this from the league of nations, who failed to protect poorer league members when japan, italy and germany started expanding their empires in the 1920/30s.
I don't think the problem is NATO per se, I think the problem is how certain countries (Germany) have come to rely on Russian gas. Certainly since Yeltsin came drunkenly staggering onto the scene in the 90s the West has perhaps been too keen to bring Russia into the fold, which bred complacency over the last 25 years. Look at how Russian Oligarch money is sloshing through London.
When you read into Putin he certainly seems keen to bring the Soviet Union back. Look at how he got away with annexing Crimea and the issues in South Ossetia. I think Putin expected to just take Ukraine in days and NATO, UN etc would just raise their eyebrows and tut. I don't think it helps that Ukraine is yet to become a member of NATO or the EU but the West does seem united in it's support for Ukraine and providing them with weapons etc. I believe these still serve a purpose as Zelensky wants to quickly join the EU.
I do think Iraq has meant NATO and the UN have become paralysed to things like this, because if troops were to be sent, there would be protests in London, New York etc. But if this was the 90s, I think we'd see British and US troops on the ground very soon. Robust foreign policy is no vote winner, but it does keep us safe. Whatever happens from here, I think NATO, UN et al need to wake up and remember their roots as these post WW2 mechanisms have failed. Otherwise we'll just end up with another League of Nations, if we haven't already.
Michael
When you read into Putin he certainly seems keen to bring the Soviet Union back. Look at how he got away with annexing Crimea and the issues in South Ossetia. I think Putin expected to just take Ukraine in days and NATO, UN etc would just raise their eyebrows and tut. I don't think it helps that Ukraine is yet to become a member of NATO or the EU but the West does seem united in it's support for Ukraine and providing them with weapons etc. I believe these still serve a purpose as Zelensky wants to quickly join the EU.
I do think Iraq has meant NATO and the UN have become paralysed to things like this, because if troops were to be sent, there would be protests in London, New York etc. But if this was the 90s, I think we'd see British and US troops on the ground very soon. Robust foreign policy is no vote winner, but it does keep us safe. Whatever happens from here, I think NATO, UN et al need to wake up and remember their roots as these post WW2 mechanisms have failed. Otherwise we'll just end up with another League of Nations, if we haven't already.
Michael
NATO is a self-defence organisation. It doesn't pose a threat to Russia or China or anyone else, unless they go on the offensive first. The Russian leadership knows that. China's leadership knows that. All the "NATO encroaching on our borders" b
ks from Russia is bks. No one is threatening Russia's borders. Russia's government wishes to be able to threaten and control its neighbours. That's its problem with NATO. Any other credible mutual defense organisation would cause the Russian government the exact same problem. NATO is not the problem. The Russian government's ambitions are.
ks from Russia is bks. No one is threatening Russia's borders. Russia's government wishes to be able to threaten and control its neighbours. That's its problem with NATO. Any other credible mutual defense organisation would cause the Russian government the exact same problem. NATO is not the problem. The Russian government's ambitions are.
craigjm said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
ATG said:
NATO is a self-defence organisation.
NATO may well have had good reasons for their operations in the former Yugoslavia, Libya & Afghanistan, but they certainly were not matters of self defence. Security in our daily lives is key to our well-being. NATO’s purpose is to guarantee the freedom and security of its members through political and military means.
POLITICAL - NATO promotes democratic values and enables members to consult and cooperate on defence and security-related issues to solve problems, build trust and, in the long run, prevent conflict.
MILITARY - NATO is committed to the peaceful resolution of disputes. If diplomatic efforts fail, it has the military power to undertake crisis-management operations. These are carried out under the collective defence clause of NATO's founding treaty - Article 5 of the Washington Treaty or under a United Nations mandate, alone or in cooperation with other countries and international organisations.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
ATG said:
NATO is a self-defence organisation.
NATO may well have had good reasons for their operations in the former Yugoslavia, Libya & Afghanistan, but they certainly were not matters of self defence. FredericRobinson said:
Why would Russia or China sign up?
This. The UN is toothless because the most powerful can veto each others desires. That's a good way of preventing all-out nuclear war, so the system "works" in the fashion it was intended, but it makes it weak when those nations disagree over Israel /Ukraine /Egypt.So your new Super World Police organisation will need to either exclude powerful countries you disagree with and have powerful enemies, or include them and be ineffectual.
Whats on Second said:
such things are fine in theory, but when push comes to shove no nation wants to involve their troops in a spat
3000 miles away.
we learned this from the league of nations, who failed to protect poorer league members when japan, italy and germany started expanding their empires in the 1920/30s.
Apologies for O/T but I was reminded of this line from Blackadder Goes Forth3000 miles away.
we learned this from the league of nations, who failed to protect poorer league members when japan, italy and germany started expanding their empires in the 1920/30s.
Blackadder said:
Lieutenant George : The war started because of the vile Hun and his villainous empire- building.
Captain Blackadder : George, the British Empire at present covers a quarter of the globe, while the German Empire consists of a small sausage factory in Tanganiki. I hardly think that we can be entirely absolved of blame on the imperialistic front.
Captain Blackadder : George, the British Empire at present covers a quarter of the globe, while the German Empire consists of a small sausage factory in Tanganiki. I hardly think that we can be entirely absolved of blame on the imperialistic front.
Blackadder said:
Lieutenant George : The war started because of the vile Hun and his villainous empire- building.
Captain Blackadder : George, the British Empire at present covers a quarter of the globe, while the German Empire consists of a small sausage factory in Tanganiki. I hardly think that we can be entirely absolved of blame on the imperialistic front.
Captain Blackadder : George, the British Empire at present covers a quarter of the globe, while the German Empire consists of a small sausage factory in Tanganiki. I hardly think that we can be entirely absolved of blame on the imperialistic front.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff