NATO And The Soviet Union

1. 83

   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?

   replyreport
   1. 59

      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.
      
      https://news.yahoo.com/russian-state-me … 33119.html

      replyreport
      1. 83

         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. "https://www.euronews.com/2022/02/19/ukraine-crisis-biden-convinced-putin-has-decided-to-invade-ukraine
         
         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.

         replyreport
         1. 59

            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.

            replyreport
            1. 83

               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.

               replyreport
               1. 87

                  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.

                  replyreport
                  1. 93

                     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?)

                     replyreport
                     1. 59

                        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.

                        replyreport
                        1. 83

                           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.
                           
                           https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ho … n-ukraine/
                           
                           https://thehill.com/homenews/administra … -of-russia

                           replyreport
                           1. 59

                              Fayetteville Fayeposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                              Beyond all of the diplomacy and meetings that happened between our country , Russia and European nations, I don't understand what more could have been done?  President Biden and NATO acted immediately with sanctions as soon as Putin crossed the Ukrainian border.  Putin seemed intent on doing what he had planned.  How could he have been prevented?

                              replyreport
                              1. 83

                                 Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

                                 It is being reported Putin has threatened Finland and Sweden with consequences if they try to join NATO.
                                 
                                 He could cut Russia off from SWIFT. It would cut off his cash. It's won't stop him now. But it could slow him down now.
                                 
                                 Biden needs to apply pressure to the few countries that are against cutting Russia off SWIFT.
                                 
                                 NATO will simply sit by and watch this crime against humanity, due to worrying about what the harder sanctions would cost their own countries. Oh well, that's our new world. Not a pretty one.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 59

                                    Fayetteville Fayeposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                                    Sanctions experts are weighing in saying that SWIFT was often overhyped as a tool and that cutting access could actually backfire by forcing Russia to find alternate ways to participate in the global economy, including forging stronger ties with China or developing a digital currency.
                                    
                                    Emily Kilcrease, a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, argued that such an action could accelerate Russia’s efforts to expand the use of its own financial messaging service and drive it closer to China. I'm sure all of this is possible.
                                    
                                    China which recently put out a statement with Russia to say their partnership has “no limit” also has its own alternative to the information system, meaning that Putin would have access to a very wealthy and willing state partner. “The tech behind SWIFT is not nothing, but it’s also not brain surgery,” Smith said. “If there’s one thing the Russians have, it’s a huge amount of sophisticated IT talent.”  (WSJ source)
                                    Many have also pointed out that Russia has been preparing for economic isolation for years, stashing away hundreds of billions of dollars worth of cash and gold as Putin planned this invasion.
                                    In any case, economic punishment alone will only go so far. Putin has stashed $630 billion in Russia’s reserves, giving him the ability to withstand economic isolation, perhaps for more than a year.
                                    So it's complicated of course. It may be wise of President Biden to act prudently in terms of Swift. What kind of support will he have for sanctions being felt directly in our own country while watching Russians use a well know work around to them? But then again maybe he should, One thing is for certain he will be tagged with making the wrong decision regardless of the decision by many in our country. Just for the sake of blame.  Of course I'm thinking a loud. Just trying to throw out all the additional info and perspectives that are out there.
                                    
                                    At the same time I'm wondering The effect the Russian people themselves will have on this. Protests are growing, today their media has been shut down, thousands being arrested As they are finding out Putin has lied to them about the invasion.
                                    Saw a journalist photo of a Russian protester holding a sign that said "peace for Ukraine Freedom for us"  says a lot, considering the recent crackdown on expression in Russia. I'd love to see Putin's own people take care of him. But that's a whole other discussion.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 83

                                       Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

                                       Do you know what happens to people that protest in Russia?  I don't think anyone knows their fate.
                                       
                                       Putin needs to be stopped by cutting his funds... It's that simple. No one should be purchasing a drop of oil or natural gas from this man... Not even us.
                                       
                                       And you bring up protesting... This is what the citizens of the US should be doing. Protesting to cut off all trade, and all oil purchases with Russia.
                                       
                                       WE have our own oil and natural gas, and we know how to employ the cleanest most efficient methods of production of both.
                                       
                                       We are one planet, and it is very very hypocritical to think we are saving our planet by letting other countries produce our energy needs. Actually, it shows a form of stupidity unlike what I have ever seen.
                                       
                                       It is no wonder we are disrespected on the world stage, we look foolish at every turn. Not to mention we voted in a man that is incompetent, and ready to listen to far-left ideologies that have pretty much created the mess we find ourselves in on many fronts.
                                       
                                       I hold out hope for 2022  that I will see the government return to a functioning Government that solves problems, not creates them.

                                       report
                                       1. 59

                                          Fayetteville Fayeposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                                          I think for Europe the issue is more gas than oil.  I know that Reuters reported earlier this year that The U.S. government had held talks with several international energy companies on contingency plans for supplying natural gas to Europe if conflict between Russia and Ukraine disrupts Russian supplies.  https://www.reuters.com/business/energy … 22-01-15/. We produce more gas than we consume. More U.S. natural gas was shipped to Europe in the form of liquified natural gas in January than the amount that flowed through Russian pipelines, making the U.S. a bigger supplier for the first time, according to IHS Markit.
                                          You are right though that energy is clearly at the center of the conflict.  Although, U.S. oil companies have been much more conservative about drilling because of their increased focus on shareholders and the demand by investors that they give more funds back, but surging oil prices could ultimately be a catalyst for more drilling.
                                          https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/16/putins- … stry-.html
                                          
                                          Just an article I ran across on the complexities of gas and oil. 
                                          
                                          US oil companies used to ramp up production at even the slightest hint of higher prices.
                                          
                                          That drill-baby-drill strategy worked well for American last decade, keeping prices at the pump relatively low. And it made the United States the king of the oil world, surpassing both Saudi Arabia and Russia in production.
                                          
                                          But the strategy was terrible for the oil industry's bottom line. Drillers repeatedly oversupplied the market, careening debt-riddled companies from one price crash to another.  Unlike in OPEC nations, oil production is set by private enterprise and the free market, not government leaders.
                                          Like all presidents, I would believe that Biden wants to keep energy prices affordable and prevent prices at the pump from hitting levels that slow the economy.
                                          And yet he can't tell Big Oil to drill-baby-drill.
                                          Again, I certainly don't have expertise along these lines but just feel delving into the research and reading that we have a multifaceted issue here. 
                                          This may be good news :
                                          For the last year, year and a half, it's been OPEC+ running the show, but U.S. production is coming back already, and it's going to come back more in 2022," said oil expert Daniel Yergin.
                                          https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/30/us-oil- … ergin.html
                                          
                                          But also, Approvals for companies to drill for oil and gas on U.S. public lands are on pace this year to reach their highest level since George W. Bush was president. This may be good timing.
                                          
                                          Not sure about far left ideologies as you had mentioned. I don't think I've ever found President Biden to be much left of center at all.  But of course my idea of far left may be different than others.

                                          report
                                 2. 77

                                    tsmogposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                                    Yeah, he threatened Sweden and Finland, yet reading Swedish/English newspapers they have no intent of doing so at this time of course. Neither of them will join NATO unless the other one does. They  have an unwritten pact to defend the other if attacked.
                                    
                                    Sweden is on alert today to the extent they are distributing booklets letting the populace know what to do in a war time crisis with emphasis on cyber attacks, not having access to cash, and keeping a few days of food on hand.
                                    
                                    Sweden has had concern of Russia for sometime now with Russia's activity in the Baltic Sea with amphibious craft. They moved tanks and personnel to Gotland Island some time ago as well air force and navy patrols.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 83

                                       Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

                                       In my view, America's hands have been tied in some respects. If we started pumping and opened up the pipeline we could replace Russia in regard to supplying Europe with energy. We have the technology and resources to do this. We are one planet, and Europe is going to continue to use oil and natural gas... I would rather see us providing it, and work for better ways to keep the process as lean as possible. Like I said we are one planet... And we should be intelligent enough to see this as a solution to cutting Russia off from its life supply of cash.
                                       
                                       This situation with Russia will only get worse without very heavy sanctions. No one should be allowed to purchase energy from Russia, we are all paying for his aggression.
                                       
                                       What a world we have become.

                                       report
                                    2. 73

                                       Miebakagh57posted 12 months agoin reply to this

                                       The atmosphere is tense...I don't think it lead to war.

                                       report
                  2. 83

                     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.

                     replyreport
   2. 73

      Miebakagh57posted 12 months agoin reply to this

      Who lead Nato? That's the crucial question.

      replyreport
      1. 83

         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.

         replyreport
      2. 92

         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.

         replyreport
         1. 73

            Miebakagh57posted 12 months agoin reply to this

            Okay. Thanks.

            replyreport
2. 81

   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.

   replyreport
   1. 73

      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.

      replyreport
3. 92

   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.

   replyreport
   1. 73

      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.

      replyreport
      1. 92

         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:  https://youtu.be/3CMvMaUtd0Q

         replyreport
4. 77

   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.

   replyreport
   1. 92

      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:  https://youtu.be/nnAwW5So5QU

      replyreport
5. 73

   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.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Fayetteville Fayeposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      Absolutely. Humanitarian corridors/zones and aid.

      replyreport
      1. 73

         Miebakagh57posted 12 months agoin reply to this

         You're welcome.

         replyreport