Reply With Quote
It's hard to disagree. NATO lost focus.
It doesn't know what its mission is. You know that when Montenegro becomes an official ally.
Sure, i'm sure there are plenty of people in Baltics scared of Russia. But Estonia and Latvia are like 25% russians. It's like trying to get states with plenty of Mexicans to finance a wall against Mexico. It's unappealing to large segment of population and wrong solution anyway.
Putin's regime is corrupt and he's seeking outside conflict to distract his population from Russians internal problems. But NATO putting huge army right on Russia's border plays perfectly into his hand. NATO is behaving excatly like an external threat does, it's saving him from having to manufacture a threat and it builds his regimes legitimacy, because he can always point to NATO's aggresive behaviour. Any internal opposition is labeled unpatriotic and enemy agents, trying to destabilize the country with enemies at the gates.
NATO buildups and exercises at Russia's border are not only pointless, they are also counter-productive.
It's hard to disagree. NATO lost focus.
It doesn't know what its mission is. You know that when Montenegro becomes an official ally.
Shady actions in Libya (Obama) and Yugoslavia (Clinton)
NATO has long since exceeded its defensive mandate.
On that note. Let's take a look at what's going on in Ukraine and the multiple army drafts:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...9c9_story.html
Ukraine is trying to build a force of 250,000 able ready soldiers, mainly by issuing multiple drafts. Problem is, most draftees don't wanna fight and would rather ignore the call and run away:
“I decided a long time ago that I wouldn’t respond to the order,” said Igor, a 25-year-old worker with a nongovernmental organization within Kiev, who received a draft summons in February. “I am not at all interested in participating in such a conflict. They should have been acting much more effectively to have fewer victims — I don’t want to end up on the victim list myself.”
between one-third and one-half of the more than 6,000 deaths in the Ukrainian conflict were in the military, and Igor cites systemic problems — such as draft commanders who ask for bribes, and commanders, including the president, who maintain Russian business ties while asking soldiers to die for Ukraine — as reasons why he and many others cannot bring themselves to serve.
...there are very harsh criminal penalties for draft dodgers.” acknowledged military spokesman Vladislav Seleznev
“I would rather sit in prison for three years — and be fed and secure — than serve,” said Andrey, 26, a metal plant worker who was drafted in March. “After a whole year of this government, we still have to work for two days to buy a loaf of bread. I don’t want to go fight for that kind of government.”
NATO
they are in a worse state than before, especially since now they are in a state of civil war
“We were fighting for autonomy, for the right to live and work in our own region. When the army came, they just bombarded us for two months in a row,” Andrey said. “And now I’m supposed to go and fight for them? I don’t think so.”
Thanks to Washington Post for printing some truth about the civil war in Ukraine. One could also add that out of 117,044 people who received draft calls in the "4th wave" and came for medical examination, only 52,962 people were deemed ready to serve by the doctors. It's less than 50%. People are trying to avoid being drafted into the civil war in many different ways.
I don't blame foreign posters here not wanting their countries go the same way of Ukraine just to accomplish NATO imperialist goals. They win or lose they will get nothing out of it.
oh yeah. latest news is that Ukraine will now change the way they do the draft. They will not announce it ahead of time anymore. this is so the draftees don't have time to run
step right up, come and fight and die for Western bankers...
Last edited by hater; 02-06-2016 at 11:08 AM.
You just built a pipeline through Turkey into the Adriatic and you cannot figure out how it might impact your national security?
I'm looking up something that corroborates your stance on Slovenian at udes and how you claim it was sold. Everything I'm finding speaks to the opposite. Basically saying that Slovenia is the most liberal of the former yugoslavia and that the hangups have revolved around border disputes with Croatia.
"We" built a pipeline? That is news to me, since our country can barely scrape together money to pay for police and firefighters.
As for the second part:
The speech by NATO Secretary General, Lord Robertson (at the time):
http://nato.int/docu/speech/2002/index.html
And here is the speach of Jamie Shea (NATO PR) at the time in the Slovenian parliament:
http://nato.gov.si/slo/slovenija-nat...ja/govor-shea/
Note the use of "Euro-Atlantic" and references to EU to link both together. There are also some vague promises of being able to influence USA policies (
"Euro-Atlantic" particularly was a key phrase to referer to both EU and NATO membership together and was used all the time by Slovenian politicans. I'm sure you can find plenty of sources.
Here is more recent recap of events leading to Slovenia joining NATO by a retired slovenian diplomat:
https://www.dnevnik.si/1042655633
Note the part:
Translation:S članstvom v Natu, ki se mu je 1. maja pridružilo še članstvo v Evropski uniji, je Slovenija zaključila proces integriranja v vse najpomembnejše mednarodne ins ucije in mehanizme. S tem je udejanjila svoj strateški cilj biti del »svobodne, demokratične in celovite Evrope, ki živi v miru v širši evroatlanski skupnosti skupnih vrednot«.
It's still seen as "achievement reached". Slovenians have zero interest in actually participating in any conflicts.With membership in NATO, followed by May 1st membership in the European Union , Slovenia has completed the process of integration in all the major international ins utions and mechanisms . This has realized its strategic goal to be part of " free, democratic and undivided Europe , living in peace in the broader Euro-Atlantic community of shared values ."
p.s. The Slovenia-Croatia border dispute is still unresolved.
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the...-baltics-15139Their conclusion illustrates the folly years ago of treating NATO as a social club and inducting new members which were irrelevant to the continent’s security and possessed minimal military capabilities. At the time, Russia was too weak to make much of a fuss and U.S. officials assumed that mere words would suffice to defend those inducted. NATO expansion was considered a great success. But now the alliance realizes that it is obligated to war against nuclear-armed Russia on behalf of three essentially indefensible countries.
Still waiting for something to support your 75% of Slovenians assertion. Your quote clearly identifies the two as separate incidents and does not give the link that you assert. Temporal order is only that."We" built a pipeline? That is news to me, since our country can barely scrape together money to pay for police and firefighters.
As for the second part:
The speech by NATO Secretary General, Lord Robertson (at the time):
http://nato.int/docu/speech/2002/index.html
And here is the speach of Jamie Shea (NATO PR) at the time in the Slovenian parliament:
http://nato.gov.si/slo/slovenija-nat...ja/govor-shea/
Note the use of "Euro-Atlantic" and references to EU to link both together. There are also some vague promises of being able to influence USA policies (
"Euro-Atlantic" particularly was a key phrase to referer to both EU and NATO membership together and was used all the time by Slovenian politicans. I'm sure you can find plenty of sources.
Here is more recent recap of events leading to Slovenia joining NATO by a retired slovenian diplomat:
https://www.dnevnik.si/1042655633
Note the part:
Translation:
It's still seen as "achievement reached". Slovenians have zero interest in actually participating in any conflicts.
p.s. The Slovenia-Croatia border dispute is still unresolved.
As for the pipeline, yes as in you, the Hungarians, etc built a pipeline from the area around Ukraine and the plains west of the Caspian to the adriatic and the Med. While I have zero doubt that you got much foreign investment to get it done, you guys benefit economically immensely being the shipping endpoint. IOW, what happens in Ukraine and the area around Crimea directly impacts your economy.
And yet Russia is concerned about their southern flank and is rattling sabers. You can wave your hands at the tactical situation in the north claiming that if they bring all their force to bear we cannot win there but it ignores teh strategic implications of the Russians exposing their southern flank. They know and are currently having 'massive' war games out by the Caspian.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/putin-so...litary-drills/
That is where the lions share of their oil comes from. They can take the area 500 mi around Moscow but if they lose the strategic oil fields in the SW they are screwed. Turks have been fighting with them over the area for 400 years.
https://www.dnevnik.si/1042717061/sl...-dajemo-dovoljOb obisku generalnega sekretarja Zveze Nato Jensa Stoltenberga v Ljubljani, ki je izrazil pričakovanje, da bo Slovenija povečala svoje obrambne izdatke, nas je zanimalo, ali so vprašani temu naklonjeni. Skoraj tri četrtine jih povečanja deleža sredstev za obrambo ne podpira.
(almost 3/4, to be fair there are some other polls at the time, which put opposition at "only" over 50% against)
Sure, feel free to lecture me on Slovenian politics.Your quote clearly identifies the two as separate incidents and does not give the link that you assert. Temporal order is only that.
You mean the Russian pipeline, that was abandoned, because it was blocked by EU? How is being member of NATO helping protect this non-existant pipeline?As for the pipeline, yes as in you, the Hungarians, etc built a pipeline from the area around Ukraine and the plains west of the Caspian to the adriatic and the Med. While I have zero doubt that you got much foreign investment to get it done, you guys benefit economically immensely being the shipping endpoint. IOW, what happens in Ukraine and the area around Crimea directly impacts your economy.
No , what happens around Russia directly impacts our economy, Russia is one of our major trade partners. Why would i want to be more hostile towards them?
That link doesn't state that quote. I don't know slovenian but translating on the interwebs isn't hard. Your quote is not on that page. The word NATO is not on that page either.
It goes through old soviet states yes and I suppose that it starts in Russia but its not shut off. It primarily runs through Kazakhstan because of how much oil comes from that region. Considering what a small country even you claim to be and that the west Caspian is where the lions share comes from I think it is integral to your economy. I'm not talking about the southern route that was shut down due to the current conflict all though that only serves to underscore my point.
I'm not lecturing you on politics. I'm lecturing you on what your article logically determines. All it says is one came before the other and does not say that it was dependent or even sold as dependent. It is what it is. I have no idea who you are and for all I know you are a troll on a VPN. I have no reason to trust you. Your assumption without even attempting to prove that assertion is not helping that either.
Crimea was criminal expansion which meets the standard of imperial expansion. The proxy war they are playing in Ukraine the same. What has NATO done?
Ukraines president being couped by neonazi criminals is equivalent to Panamas president being couped by a drug cartel. You don't think USA would protect their interests in the Panama Canal?? Crimea is pretty much Russia's Panama CanalMore failure.So assassinating a sitting president and invading and bombing another is not a sign of criminal imperial expansion???
wow just wow
So it is safe to assume then, that NATO has not done anything similar. If it were otherwise, you would have pointed it out.
Thank you.
Define "shady".
Was it something like this?
http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/01/world/...ia-mass-grave/
We've been fighting over Belgrade since the Romans sacked the Seleucid's empire and started settling around the Black sea. It's a strategic chokepoint and the route by which the west can transport whatever quite easily to the Russian southern flank and the southern caucuses.
Ferdinand's assassination was the initial event but Russia's compe ion with the Austrian's over Belgrade was the real reason for the war. Austrians wanted to be the gatekeepers considering their geographic location. Russian czarists have a Pan Slavic vision that is similar to what we call manifest destiny. This is not surprising considering they are the descendants of what was left after the Mongols and Turks raped and seized the Eastern Roman Empire.
I have always thought it convenient that Bolshevik and similar authoritarian types want to reprise the czar's foreign policy objectives. At least now Putin kowtows to the Eastern Church who would love to have the Hagia Sophia back. It's delusion vs delusion. They missed Marx's point.
It's obviously hard for you. Here try direct link to poll results: http://www.ninamedia.si/vprasanja.php?mesec=jul15
It's not integral to our economy. You know what is integral to our economy? Trade with Russia. Anwser this: How does antagonizing our major trade partner help our "safety"? We should cut our social spending to piss of our major trade partner - pure genius. Nothing spells safety like a long recession.
You have no idea what you're talking about. EU and NATO were sold as connected (Euro-atlantic), i lived through it. I'm not searching the web for it just for you. But sure, i'm a troll on decade long con just waiting for this moment, when i can troll you for knowing nothing about Slovenia.I'm not lecturing you on politics. I'm lecturing you on what your article logically determines. All it says is one came before the other and does not say that it was dependent or even sold as dependent. It is what it is. I have no idea who you are and for all I know you are a troll on a VPN. I have no reason to trust you. Your assumption without even attempting to prove that assertion is not helping that either.
Again, people lie around here as a matter of course, use VPNs to play like their french or all manner of places and the like. The fact that you act coy to all this and instead try to paint it as me being stupid to think this would be a one time thing is amusing but really belies your attempt. Nice strawman though.It's obviously hard for you. Here try direct link to poll results: http://www.ninamedia.si/vprasanja.php?mesec=jul15
It's not integral to our economy. You know what is integral to our economy? Trade with Russia. Anwser this: How does antagonizing our major trade partner help our "safety"? We should cut our social spending to piss of our major trade partner - pure genius. Nothing spells safety like a long recession.
You have no idea what you're talking about. EU and NATO were sold as connected (Euro-atlantic), i lived through it. I'm not searching the web for it just for you. But sure, i'm a troll on decade long con just waiting for this moment, when i can troll you for knowing nothing about Slovenia.
If you lived through it, it should be very easy to find news articles to support it. Journalism opinions pieces or anything. You having failed to do so speaks louder than your pla udes.
The site is in a foreign language and you gave the wrong link. Trying to pin it on me is cute but that is your failure. The poll asks whether or not you should double defense expenditures. It's not quite the same as your pla ude.
On a final note, what is Russia's major export and what does mutually exclusive mean?
No it speaks of the state of the internet and newspaper archives in Slovenia more than a decade ago. For most newspapers you have to pay if you want to search such old archives and i simply don't care enough to do it.
No, that's not what the poll asks. It asks whether Slovenia should increase defensive spending or not. If you can't speak Slovenian and are unable to translate it (p.s. google translate is rubish for small languages and slovenian is pretty complicated one at that) why are you even disquising Slovenian politics? You have zero insight into it. Bottom line people don't support increasing defense budget and the goverment currently at their lowest support would be crazy to even attempt it.The site is in a foreign language and you gave the wrong link. Trying to pin it on me is cute but that is your failure. The poll asks whether or not you should double defense expenditures. It's not quite the same as your pla ude.
Don't care. Slovenia has positive trade balance with them, i care about their imports. How about you now anwser my question: How does antagonizing our major trade partner help our "safety"? I guess shrinking our GDP is one way to get our defense budget closer to 2% GDP, i'm not sure that helps the alliance all that much.On a final note, what is Russia's major export and what does mutually exclusive mean?
I just want one link and if you cannot prove it then fine but there is no reason for anyone to believe you without one. You are still acting coy and refuse to acknowledge the troll dynamic that goes on here. Again what does mutually exclusive mean? You clearly do not understand the concept.
translates to
That is what google translates the poll question to. It clearly references current spending at less than 1% and whether or not to increase it to 2%. The way it frames is whether or not to raise it up to 2% from where it is now.
Why don't I answer your question? Because it's premise assumes your argument and I don't play those half-assed games. If you want to make the point that 'antagonizing Russia' would be harmful then make it. Don't backdoor into the conclusion with loaded questions. I can just as easily ask why should it.
Sigh. I'll translate the actual question for you and then i'll go to bed, because it's getting late i have work tommorow:
Zveza Nato pričakuje, da bo Slovenija povečala svoje obrambne izdatke.
Nato Alliance expects Slovenia to increase its defesive spending.
Slovenija se je zavezala, da bo za obrambne izdatke namenjala dva odstotka bruto domačega proizvoda (BDP), trenutno pa za te izdatke namenja manj kot odstotek BDP.
Slovenia commited to spending 2% GDP for defensive spending, but is currently spending less than 1% GDP for this expenses.
Ali naj torej Slovenija poveča delež sredstev za obrambo ali ne?
Should Slovenia therefore increase its share of founds for defense or not?
It's says nothing about how much the increase would be, but i do admit it's a bit leading. Here you have a second poll after Slovenian PM commited (at the mitting) to increasing spending... gradually... starting in 2017:
http://www.delo.si/novice/politika/a...ni-nemcij.html
Half (49%) opposes, about 1/3rd supports.
p.s. you can see the join date if you click the user profile.
It's no different than what I posted. Quit being gratuitous.
Slovenia is committed to this. . . . should we increase spending? It's a loaded question. Phrased differently and the results changing by 25 should tell you something.
PS - what does join date have to do with anything? You trying to pretend that the trolling is a new phenomenon? Sure there was a troll forum the very start but do you think they stayed there? You think VPN's weren't around then?
Mind you I am not saying that you are a troll. I'm just saying around this place its impossible to tell and the owners don't give a as they do it too. Your a fool to give anyone the benefit of the doubt around here. That is the dynamic I'm saying you are obtuse to. I've been here from the beginning but I never ask anyone to just take me at my own personal anecdotes. nullius in verba is a good ethic to have in any cir stance.
man...one short of the trifecta, just needed to fit wishcasting in this post.
Russian military deployed near Ukraine for huge exercises
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35532842
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions