NATO And The Soviet Union

Jump to Last Post 1-5 of 5 discussions (32 posts)
  1. Sharlee01 profile image83
    Sharlee01posted 12 months ago
    NATO serves as a political and military alliance for its 29 member states spanning Europe and North America. Founded in 1949 to provide collective defense against the Soviet Union, the alliance seeks to balance Russian power and influence.

    Your thoughts, how do you think they are doing on their mission in regard to providing collective defense against the Soviet Union?

    Do you approve of how NATO is handling the current Russian invasion of Ukraine?

    1. Fayetteville Faye profile image59
      Fayetteville Fayeposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      NATO has no obligation to defend Ukraine but it can and should make any Russian attempts to occupy a sovereign nation difficult. Ukraine will not join NATO any time soon, if ever, but that does not mean Moscow should be free to bully a former satellite.

      Within NATO, the allies have no choice but to robustly enhance, which all are doing,  their defense posture in response to further Russian aggression. To do less would be disastrous. The credibility of the Alliance, not to mention the United States, would otherwise take a blow.
      In my opinion it has been a strong United response. Really the most United it's ever been.
      One area I haven't heard enough about though is NATO providing Ukraine with more lethal weaponry.
      Could these sanctions be tougher? Probably by continuing to follow the money and target the oligarchs directly even Putin himself as well as kicking Russia out of the swift system. I believe that Italy and Germany currently have an issue with barring Russia from Swift. But who knows that may be something that happens down the line.
      I have more concern and disdain for media celebrities and Some politicians providing Putin propaganda he is feeding his citizens to support his war. Russian  state TV is translating and replaying Tucker Carlson, Laura ingraham, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Tulsi gabbard regurgitating Russian talking points.  This angers me. America should be uniting against Putin. Yet we have active groups encouraging sympathizing an admiration of a tyrannical dictator. … 33119.html

      1. Sharlee01 profile image83
        Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

        Ukraine has made several attempts to join NATO. " Most recent --- 
        "Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, present in Munich, used his speech to demand a "clear and feasible" timetable for his country to join NATO, calling for what he called the "politics of appeasement" towards Russia to cease. "

        Would seem if Ukraine was in NATO there is a chance that Putin would have thought twice about walking into Ukraine. So you are correct NATO does not need to even consider protecting  Ukraine. 

        I feel the sanctions were expected by Putin, and he could care very little about them thus far. Hopefully, Putin stops with Ukraine, because if not we will face a world war, and we will be upon against an adversary that is powerful as the US. I tend to agree with Trump in regard to NATO.No no need to repeat his negative opinion at this point.

        In regard to weapons, the majority are being sent from Ammunition: Poland, Czech Republic. In recent weeks, deliveries from the United Kingdom and the United States, in particular, have increased sharply. According to Defense Minister Resnikov, 1,300 tons of weapons have already been shipped to Ukraine from the US alone. These are the same countries that pay their fair share to NATO... The other, not so much. So, just not willing to credit all of the NATO nations for sending weapons or even cooperating with stronger sanctions.

        AS you have claimed ---  Germany currently has an issue with barring Russia from Swift. This is very telling and says a lot about their willingness to cooperate when comes to sharing the brunt of what discomforts they are willing to take to stop a tyrant, and possibly save many lives.

        I don't intend to sound rude, but honest. Concerning once self with media at this time seems confusing to me. Yes, some are saying things we don't want to hear or admit. It makes me very uncomfortable to hear much of it. However, in the end, some of what they are saying seems blatantly true. And being a realist it is hard to fool myself that some of it is very true.

        I feel America in the last years has evolved away from being patriotic at all costs.  I get in some ways the word "woke" has become a word both sides can use.  In my view, Americans are more apt to see Putin for what he is, a tyrant. Some are willing to speak up to a sad truth, in this case, we are over a barrel, and have been weakened by this crisis.

        1. Fayetteville Faye profile image59
          Fayetteville Fayeposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          Oh yes, I think you are correct. Putin would not have moved on Ukraine if they were a part of NATO. 
          In regard to sanctions I think that they are going to take time. Months if not longer.  He is already squashing growing protests in Russia against this war. People there will only grow more unhappy with Putin. I think his quest to return to the days of the old Soviet Union will be his undoing. 
          In terms of Swift, I do think it's important for everyone involved to weigh the removal against the impacts on individual economies. It would be damaging for us and Germany. But also, Allies on both sides of the Atlantic also dangled the SWIFT option in 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea and backed separatist forces in eastern Ukraine. Russia declared then that kicking it out of SWIFT would be equivalent to a declaration of war. The allies shelved the idea. It appears that choosing the Swift option may be a dramatic escalation.
          No worries, I take no offense but I See the media as increasingly becoming a tool that tears people in society apart. It's done  a though  job of polarizing us down to the most minute issues.  I Think possibly the reason I find it so repugnant is that The commentaries most of the time don't even seem genuine. Possibly Americans are less patriotic because they've been led down that road.  Disagreement and constructive criticism are fine but increasingly in our country it's done in a hateful way.

          1. Sharlee01 profile image83
            Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

            "In regard to sanctions I think that they are going to take time. Months if not longer. "

            Do the people of Ukraine have months with Russia already pushing across the country?  These sanctions should have been put in place weeks ago when Putin was putting troops in place. Biden is a poor strategist. Day late dollar short.

            I agree media has become a tool that tears people in society apart. They have done what they set out t do. It's all about driving hate and securing the divide.

            1. Valeant profile image87
              Valeantposted 12 months agoin reply to this

              So you wanted sanctions for a country amassing troops legally within their own borders?  Sanctions you have said Russia doesn't even care about any way.

              You logic is all over the place there.  And it's great to see you continue to bash our leader during a time of war.  The latest example of right-wing patriots supporting their own nation in a time of war.

              1. wilderness profile image93
                wildernessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                Better reactive than proactive, right? Can lose more American lives that way.

                We don't have a "leader".  Just a bumbling old fool that hasn't a clue what the nation, or the world, needs. 

                (Betting you will now refer to Trump somehow.  Do I win?)

                1. Fayetteville Faye profile image59
                  Fayetteville Fayeposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                  There was nothing to sanction Putin for until he crossed the borders into Ukraine. Our "bumbling" leader understood that.  I'm losing faith in humanity here by the minute.

                  1. Sharlee01 profile image83
                    Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

                    He had weeks to pull together NATO and place very heavy threats at Putin. He could have made attempts to prevent a crisis. He did not, he showed no strength at all. Neither did NATO.

                    It would appear polls are showing the majority of Americans are disapproving of the way Biden has handled this Russia crisis.

           … n-ukraine/

           … -of-russia

              2. Sharlee01 profile image83
                Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

                I think the threat should have been there. Just my opinion. I in no respect consider Biden a leader. Sorry but I don't Biden is suited for the job. My feeling has not changed on that score, from the day he said he was going to run. 

                We are not at war technically, I would be petrified if we were with Biden in the White House. And, don't think I am not sorry to have to say that. he is the first president that I can't get behind.  He is downright scary. We have had one problem after another from the moment he stepped into the White House. And sadly enought, I venture we will have more to come. He needs to step down for the sake of the country.

    2. Miebakagh57 profile image73
      Miebakagh57posted 12 months agoin reply to this

      Who lead Nato? That's the crucial question.

      1. Sharlee01 profile image83
        Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

        In this case, it does not appear the US has the reins.  As a rule, the US has been in a more powerful voice in NATO. It would appear that time has passed. For now anyway.

      2. Nathanville profile image92
        Nathanvilleposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        The current Secretary General of NATO is Jens Stoltenberg (born 1959), a Norwegian politician who is serving as the 13th secretary general of NATO since 2014.

        1. Miebakagh57 profile image73
          Miebakagh57posted 12 months agoin reply to this

          Okay. Thanks.

  2. emge profile image81
    emgeposted 12 months ago

    How are you going to ensure that no one purchases energy from Russia? is China going to listen to the US. Putin and President Xi inked a deal for $115 billion energy supply to China. How will the US ensure that India does not buy weapons from Russia which runs into billions of dollars? Sanctions will lead nowhere and will hurt the European powers more than they hurt Russia. Even smaller powers like Pakistan are not bothered about US sanctions as Prime Minister Imran Khan made a visit to Moscow exactly when the battle in Ukraine was going and remarked it's an exciting time.

    1. Miebakagh57 profile image73
      Miebakagh57posted 12 months agoin reply to this

      That may be. Sanctions aside, let's watch who's suppose to win the day.                                           The Pakistan leader is a sole fool to describe the scenario an 'excitng time', when the world is worried about the war going on in Ukraine.                                        Yesterday I join the world to pray for Ukraine victory.

  3. Nathanville profile image92
    Nathanvilleposted 12 months ago

    Yes, NATO has no obligation to defend Ukraine because Ukraine is not a NATO member.

    However, in April 1993, after the United Nations Security Council Resolution 819 was passed unanimously, with no votes against, and no abstentions, even though Bosnia was not a NATO member, the resolution made it legal under international law for NATO to defend Bosnia.

    The 15 countries who voted in favour of NATO defending Bosnia were China, France, Russia, UK, USA, Brazil, Cape Verde, Djibouti; Hungary, Japan, Morocco, New Zealand, Pakistan; Spain and Venezuela.

    If we’re honest, the only reason NATO is not pushing for similar action now is because we (including the USA) is fearful of the conflict escalating into nuclear war; and the Russians have plenty of nuclear missiles aimed at the USA and UK etc.

    1. Miebakagh57 profile image73
      Miebakagh57posted 12 months agoin reply to this

      Does it means the  USA, UK, and the remaining members of the Big Five have no nuclear war-heads? Why remain intimidated?                                        What would happen if  Russia takes on the offensive? The world should warn and intimidate Russia.

      1. Nathanville profile image92
        Nathanvilleposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        Far from it, the UK has four submarines that carries nuclear warheads, of which at least one is always hidden at sea, each submarine carries up to 40 nuclear warheads, each one more powerful than the two dropped on Japan at the end of the 2nd world war; which can be fired at Russia at any time e.g. if Russia dropped a nuclear warhead on London.  So the destructive power from the UK alone would be devastating; and that is small fry compared to the nuclear weapons that Russia and the USA has.

        The countries with their own nuclear warheads and the numbers they have are:-

        •    Russia = 6,257 nuclear warheads
        •    USA = 5,550
        •    China = 350
        •    France    = 290
        •    United Kingdom =225
        •    Pakistan = 165
        •    India = 160
        •    Israel = 90
        •    North Korea = 45

        Countries that have been given nuclear warheads by the USA, as part of the USA defence (USA nuclear weapons in host countries):-

        •    Turkey = 50
        •    Italy = 40
        •    Germany = 20
        •    Netherlands = 20
        •    Belgium = 20

        The best estimate is that it would take between 10 and 100 nuclear bombs to destroy the Earth; so in that respect the numbers of nuclear warheads above is overkill.

        On Board Britain's Nuclear Submarine:

  4. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
    Kathryn L Hillposted 12 months ago

    Nuclear Warheads:

    •    Russia = 6,257

    •    USA = 5,550

    6,257 + 5,550 = 11,807

    FYI: "The system used to deliver a nuclear weapon to its target is an important factor affecting both nuclear weapon design and nuclear strategy. The design, development, and maintenance of delivery systems are among the most expensive parts of a nuclear weapons program; they account, for example, for 57% of the financial resources spent by the United States on nuclear weapons projects since 1940.

    The simplest method for delivering a nuclear weapon is a gravity bomb dropped from aircraft; this was the method used by the United States against Japan. This method places few restrictions on the size of the weapon. It does, however, limit attack range, response time to an impending attack, and the number of weapons that a country can field at the same time. With miniaturization, nuclear bombs can be delivered by both strategic bombers and tactical fighter-bombers. This method is the primary means of nuclear weapons delivery; the majority of U.S. nuclear warheads, for example, are free-fall gravity bombs, namely the B61

    Preferable from a strategic point of view is a nuclear weapon mounted on a missile, which can use a ballistic trajectory to deliver the warhead over the horizon. Although even short-range missiles allow for a faster and less vulnerable attack, the development of long-range intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) has given some nations the ability to plausibly deliver missiles anywhere on the globe with a high likelihood of success.

    More advanced systems, such as multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRVs), can launch multiple warheads at different targets from one missile, reducing the chance of a successful missile defense.

    Today, missiles are most common among systems designed for delivery of nuclear weapons.

    Making a warhead small enough to fit onto a missile, though, can be difficult." Wikipedia.

    1. Nathanville profile image92
      Nathanvilleposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      Yep, the UK has 225 such nuclear warheads for missiles in our submarines (SLBMs); of which at least 40 are always hidden at sea and out of sight of the Russians at all times.

      UK’s Nuclear Weapons Submarines:

  5. Miebakagh57 profile image73
    Miebakagh57posted 12 months ago

    The United Nations must seriously intervened to bring the Ukraine war to an end.                                       @Nathanville, I'm in agreement with the 3/4 majority against the veto.

    1. Fayetteville Faye profile image59
      Fayetteville Fayeposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      Absolutely. Humanitarian corridors/zones and aid.

      1. Miebakagh57 profile image73
        Miebakagh57posted 12 months agoin reply to this

        You're welcome.


This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at:

Show Details
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the or domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)