NATO as a Threat to Russia/Putin

Author: Discipulus_Didicit

Posts

Total: 26
Topic's author
#1
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
Lots of people saying NATO is a threat to Russia and lots of others saying it isn't, let's set the record straight by listing all the potential ways that NATO is a threat to Russia. I will go first:

1) Invading a NATO country causes other NATO countries to declare war on you (only applies if you are planning on invading your neighbors at some point)
2) ?????
3) ?????
4) ?????

Feel free to add to the list so we can set the record straight once and for all with actual facts.

#2
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
Ooh! I know:
2) NATO has nukes, which means it's a threat to Russia, regardless of whether NATO is likely to use them on Russia. By this logic, Pakistan is a threat to Monaco, India is a threat to Nigeria, and Israel is a threat to Honduras. Isn't this fun!?

Topic's author
#3
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@SirAnonymous
Good one, I'll add it to the list.

1) Invading a NATO country causes other NATO countries to declare war on you (only applies if you are planning on invading your neighbors at some point).
2) NATO has nukes too (only applies if you want to be the only country with nukes, like maybe because MAD wouldn't be a thing anymore if you were).
3) ?????
4) ?????
5) ?????
#4
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
A bully cannot properly function in an emvoronmemt where they get promised to be beaten the shit out of for beating someone else up.
#5
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@RationalMadman
If the bully can't function without the opportunity to beat people up, then that's their problem. They might just try not being a bully.
#6
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 3,362
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
NATO 'was created, for the main purpose of opposing Russia, was it not?
You can say 'just to act defensively,
But I am doubtful that NATO does not take actions designed to supplant Russian influence, power.

I'm not saying that isn't in the interest of NATO members,
But would Russia consider such in 'their interest?

Flipping countries near Russia, to align and vote against Russia,
To spread culture and values at odds with Russia's own,
To encourage Russia to break apart into smaller, weaker, easier to manage states.
Topic's author
#7
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@RationalMadman
Okay, true. I'll put something like that as number three.

1) Invading a NATO country causes other NATO countries to declare war on you (only applies if you are planning on invading your neighbors at some point).
2) NATO has nukes too (only applies if you want to be the only country with nukes, like maybe because MAD wouldn't be a thing anymore if you were).
3) The possibility of accountability (only applies if you plan on doing things others will want to hold you accountable for).
4) ?????
5) ?????

Topic's author
#8
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Lemming
To encourage Russia to break apart into smaller, weaker, easier to manage states.

We are trying to list ways that NATO is a threat but we need evidence for each of the things we list or people won't take us seriously. For example, as evidence of the first threat I listed I would cite Article Five of the NATO charter. I can't add any of your accusations to the list until I have actual facts and truth to back it up, so please cite the evidence that NATO is planning to split apart Russia etc.

It has to be something actually happening in real life though or else again, people might not take it seriously. For example if I was to claim that Russia wanted to break up Ukraine I would point to Crimea, Luhansk, and Donetsk. You know, real life actual examples of what you describe that aren't just screwy make-believe or paranoia.

Come back when you have truth, evidence, facts, etc. so I can add what you say to the list.
#9
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Everybody talks about Hitler in WW2 as the parallel of Putin but they forget that even in WW2, Lenin and then Stalin were merciless pricks. Stalin outplayed Hitler, that's all. Russia's been a bully from the start.
#10
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
 list all the potential ways that NATO is a threat to [Putin]
  • NATO gives Ukraine a permeable, secured western border.  Ukraine can evacuate its vulnerable populations to safety, receive armaments', reinforcements, intelligence across lines that Putin can't cut off
  • NATO countries are 8% of World pop and 10% of land area but 60% of World wealth.  NATO buys more than 80% of Russian exports.  NATO can crash Russia's economy spectacularly by just passive means.
  • NATO is generally democratic (let's call Turkey and Hungary failed democracies for the present) and the freedom and equality and wealth and success of democracy de-legitimizes and makes paltry all autocracies and Putin's particularly since he is the man who took democracy away from Russia.
  • NATO unifies Europe militarily against Putin while also exposing Russia's vast, insecure eastern territories to the World's largest military
  • The end the war, all NATO has to do is kill Putin.  NATO surrounds Russia with tiers and tiers of political and military decision-makers who know the plan and can adapt and persevere.  
    • Likewise, we can be confident that only Putin has the authority to launch nuclear weapons.  Take out Putin, take out the nuclear threat (short term at least).  No such shortcut to victory  is available to Putin.

#11
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,169
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@SirAnonymous
Ooh! I know:
2) NATO has nukes, which means it's a threat to Russia, regardless of whether NATO is likely to use them on Russia. By this logic, Pakistan is a threat to Monaco, India is a threat to Nigeria, and Israel is a threat to Honduras. Isn't this fun!?
More false dichotomies lol. No one cared when the USSR stayed in the USSR. But as soon as they allied with Cuba, problems, problems, problems. Did the USSR plan on nuking the US? I don’t think so. 
#12
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,169
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Lemming
Flipping countries near Russia, to align and vote against Russia,
To spread culture and values at odds with Russia's own,
To encourage Russia to break apart into smaller, weaker, easier to manage states.
It’s not like the US has been destabilizing countries. Just take a look at Libya and Gaddafi
#13
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 3,362
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
Is that sarcasm, as you mean USA 'did possibly destabilize Libya?

I ask because I am hazy on details.
I know well enough of history that countries do covert ops, spies, fund rebels, different regimes, try to manipulate other countries.
But maybe Discipulus_Didicit feels NATO is not the USA,
Or that Cold War is long over,
Or that since I can't access government locked CIA files and such, that there is no evidence.
Or he could feel NATO is purely defensive,
Though I think bah, defense can be offense, and offense defense.
#14
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,169
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Lemming
Though I think bah, defense can be offense, and offense defense.
This is my point. And I was being serious. We’ve literally taken part in the overthrow of so many governments, whether covertly or outright militarily. But by god if Putin invades Ukraine to overthrow the government.

As Americans, I don’t think we should care, and we shouldn’t give a single cent to Ukraine, which is known for its corruption
#15
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 3,362
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
'Is only 19 years about, since invasion of Iraq,

Which as a war, has never made much sense to me.
Citizens don't necessarily all 'want war though,
And even when doing it themselves, even if we were in unjust war right this second,
Lot of people 'still wouldn't like it, think it right, or 'other countries wars.

I have mixed feelings on Ukraine,
I'd 'prefer more of a privateer/mercenary system, where people who believed in a cause,
Were allowed by government to join a country in fighting.
I don't like being pulled into situations against my will.

But I 'also figure, that leadership has 'far better understanding of world situations than me,
Though I still have opinion.
And I 'do trust that our leaders will at the 'least have their 'own interests at heart, ideally ours, and justice too.
But they have intelligence gatherers, statistic people, strategists, so on so forth,
I'm rambling.

I don't know what 'I should want for America anymore,
As time goes by, country feels not what it 'was.
Still,
As and organization, 'probably in it's short/middle term interests,
To encourage cooperation in world, lack of conflict, injustice.
#16
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@ILikePie5
More false dichotomies lol.
First of all, I must beg your pardon for the following bit of pedantry. Those are not dichotomies. A dichotomy is a choice between two options or a division between two things or parts. I was not setting up dichotomies in my post; I was drawing comparisons.

Secondly, the argument I jokingly presented for why NATO is a threat to Russia was "NATO has nukes, so they are a threat to Russia, regardless of whether they are likely to use them." The examples I gave were directly comparable to that. Merely having nukes does not make a country or alliance a threat.
No one cared when the USSR stayed in the USSR. But as soon as they allied with Cuba, problems, problems, problems. Did the USSR plan on nuking the US? I don’t think so. 
Again, the modern Russia-NATO situation is not analogous to the Cold War. In the Cold War, the only reason WWIII didn't break out was because of mutually-assured destruction. If that hadn't been an issue, it was entirely possible or even probable that the USSR would have attacked NATO, unless for some reason NATO attacked first, which also would have been possible. Even with MAD, war nearly broke out several times. So while it's true that the USSR probably did not plan on nuking the US, that was because they feared the consequences of doing so, not because they lacked the desire or will to fight. In the modern situation, NATO very clearly lacks the desire to fight, and could probably only muster the will to fight if directly attacked. Even then, they might just shrug their shoulders and say, "It's just the Baltic states. They're not worth a war." During the Cold War, NATO and Russia were threats to each other that were only held back by the even greater threat of a nuclear holocaust. Today, NATO is only a military threat if one of their member states is attacked, and only an economic threat when non-member states are attacked/threatened/annexed.
Topic's author
#17
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@oromagi
NATO is generally democratic (let's call Turkey and Hungary failed democracies for the present) and the freedom and equality and wealth and success of democracy de-legitimizes and makes paltry all autocracies and Putin's particularly since he is the man who took democracy away from Russia.
I'll put this one on the list, a lot of everything else you said I think somewhat falls under something we have already said.
Topic's author
#18
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Lemming
Or that since I can't access government locked CIA files and such, that there is no evidence.
I was able to name three examples of Russia supporting breakaway states directly (Crimea, Luhansk, and Donetsk) and I can name one more potential example that may happen in the future (Transnistria). That's just off the top of my head.

I have zero access to any locked government files of any kind whatsoever, so that is an awful excuse on your part.

We already have four things on the list so no I am not just denying things that people propose to add out of hand, I am just requiring what people say to be supported by facts rather than speculation. I feel like that is a reasonable standard.
#19
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,169
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@SirAnonymous
Even with MAD, war nearly broke out several times. So while it's true that the USSR probably did not plan on nuking the US, that was because they feared the consequences of doing so, not because they lacked the desire or will to fight. In the modern situation, NATO very clearly lacks the desire to fight, and could probably only muster the will to fight if directly attacked. Even then, they might just shrug their shoulders and say, "It's just the Baltic states. They're not worth a war." During the Cold War, NATO and Russia were threats to each other that were only held back by the even greater threat of a nuclear holocaust. Today, NATO is only a military threat if one of their member states is attacked, and only an economic threat when non-member states are attacked/threatened/annexed.
I personally think we should pull out of NATO and let the Europeans handle it. Waste of money and time. We have better problems at home and in our hemisphere.
Topic's author
#20
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
1) Invading a NATO country causes other NATO countries to declare war on you (only applies if you are planning on invading your neighbors at some point).
2) NATO has nukes too (only applies if you want to be the only country with nukes, like maybe because MAD wouldn't be a thing anymore if you were).
3) The possibility of accountability (only applies if you plan on doing things others will want to hold you accountable for).
4) Make your authoritarian regime look bad by comparison with their relative economic success (only applies to authoritarian regimes).
5) ?????
6) ?????
7) ?????
Topic's author
#21
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
We [the U.S.] have literally taken part in the overthrow of so many governments, whether covertly or outright militarily. 
Is that a good thing or a bad thing?
#22
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,169
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Is that a good thing or a bad thing?
Bad lol. We hold zero moral superiority 
Topic's author
#23
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10

We [the U.S.] have literally taken part in the overthrow of so many governments, whether covertly or outright militarily. 
Is overthrowing governments a good thing or a bad thing?
Bad lol.
I mean, I can generally agree with you but clearly Putin thinks you're full of shit.
#24
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,048
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
I personally think we should pull out of NATO and let the Europeans handle it. Waste of money and time. We have better problems at home and in our hemisphere.
Europe clearly doesn't give a crap about the situation. Hell, they helped fund the war by buying Putin Oil, and still do.
#25
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
Europe clearly doesn't give a crap about the situation.
Europe cares very much, sanctions and rival-based policy have already begun as has active providing of armaments and anti-missile tech.

UK is the first official enemy of Russia during the war and Germany has cut off a deal involving Nord Stream. France and many others have completely switch off neutral to pro-Ukraine, anti-Russia.
#26
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
The biggest way Europe is fighting back is economically btw so be sure that the oil funding will cease ASAP.

Banks and any accounts that are in any way associated with Russia can and will be frozen/ceased. This will become a problem for rich Russians who are expats in Europe and genuinely don't support Putin but this is stage 1 of the warfare (I'm exaggerating the policy, it's more against Russian banks themselves but even Russians with money outside Russia can be targeted with what is coming).