Europe at War

[Todd]

First, NATO is currently an alliance of 30 countries. It's not about the US only.

The military effectiveness of NATO is totally reliant on US military capabilities and the US nuclear deterrent.  You have posted in the past about the ineffectiveness of NATO absent US power.  That has not changed.

Second, you should address that question to the White House, the Pentagon and the Congress, not to me, for it is they who will OK the expansion.

Since so many non-American board members are passionately devoted to expanding NATO, I am interested in knowing what the US will gain from expanding NATO by the members of this board who so eagerly want that to happen.  So far no one has offered even one benefit.

Opinions of US policymakers are readily available and I am aware of hawkish rationales offered by various leaders. 

And the issue at hand is precisely a Russian-Finnish war.

There is no Russo-Finnish war.  The so-called wartime strength of the Finnish military is an aspirational statement. 

If you mean nukes, you're right --- but then again they could level New York too so it's not very relevant. If you mean a strictly conventional war, right now it's very doubtful they could.

No, Russia could rely on missile bombardment of Helsinki, and potentially naval bombardment, and slowly demolish the city, block by block, killing hundreds of thousands of Finns.  Russia could not do that to New York.

Folks, always bear in mind that Todd is not a patriotic citizen of the US

Patriotism is very important to some people.

[Florestan]

The military effectiveness of NATO is totally reliant on US military capabilities and the US nuclear deterrent.  You have posted in the past about the ineffectiveness of NATO absent US power.  That has not changed.


Since so many non-American board members are passionately devoted to expanding NATO, I am interested in knowing what the US will gain from expanding NATO by the members of this board who so eagerly want that to happen.  So far no one has offered even one benefit.

Opinions of US policymakers are readily available and I am aware of hawkish rationales offered by various leaders. 


There is no Russo-Finnish war.  The so-called wartime strength of the Finnish military is an aspirational statement. 


No, Russia could rely on missile bombardment of Helsinki, and potentially naval bombardment, and slowly demolish the city, block by block, killing hundreds of thousands of Finns.  Russia could not do that to New York.


Patriotism is very important to some people.

I give up. I really do.

[71 dB]

I give up. I really do.

So did I a while back and added him to my ignore list. I see what he writes because people quote his posts.

So far NATO countries have been welcoming Finland to join and that's what counts.

[Madiel]

Just glimpsing quotes of what Todd is saying reminds me that it must be a day ending in Y.

He must have been an absolute nightmare in group assignments.

[drogulus]

    The alliance system benefits the US. The US is the chief guarantor of the world wide economic system that it benefits from more than any other country. The US is unique in both its ability to defend it anywhere in the world but also the willingness to bear the greatest burden to do so. That has paid off in the current crisis.

     Undoubtedly there are costs as well as benefits to allowing small countries to matter as much as they do. Some form of calculation might lead to leaving them out. however, I would maintain that even in the case where little clear strategic advantage is obtained it acts to give the world assurance that the system is run for the benefit of all and all may contribute. 

     It might have turned out that other countries would see the system as rigged against them. So far the US has managed to keep the members on side, in part by not being too demanding on contentious issue like Vietnam.

     The US has accumulated huge institutional memory in how to keep the system optimally functional and fresh, so when Russia attacked Ukraine the massive job of coordinating an effective world wide response was partly done.

     Even if nations don't have friends, the US has the next best thing, and it has lots of them all over the place. For a country that has lived by the concept of forward defense since its inception, having bases near any possible earthly threat is as good as it gets.

[Todd]

Defiant U.S. Senator Rand Paul stymies effort to pass $40 billion Ukraine aid bill

Some fleeting good news.  It is true, Rand Paul is demanding something outrageous and egregious:

Paul is demanding that the legislation be altered to require an inspector general to oversee spending on Ukraine.

How dare he.  Ukraine and American defense contractors will end up with their handouts soon enough, so don't fret.

[steve ridgway]

I think that if Russia attacked Finland right now your nation alone, without any help, would inflict a crushing defeat on the Muscovites --- but such an attack is highly unlikely so cheer up. 

Yes, look how well Ukraine is resisting them.

[milk]

Defiant U.S. Senator Rand Paul stymies effort to pass $40 billion Ukraine aid bill

Some fleeting good news.  It is true, Rand Paul is demanding something outrageous and egregious:

How dare he.  Ukraine and American defense contractors will end up with their handouts soon enough, so don't fret.

What would have happened if someone like Paul were elected instead of Trump? I don't like Paul but I always thought he was the real radical of the bunch. Paul vs. Sanders would have been it: two politicians with real conviction. Oops. That's probably for the other thread. Yeah, I can't imagine republicans or democrats will want accountability or transparency of any kind.

[Herman]

Not sure whether it's a desirable thing to have a 'real radical' lead a 350 million pop nation, plus the most powerful military in the world.

[milk]

Not sure whether it's a desirable thing to have a 'real radical' lead a 350 million pop nation, plus the most powerful military in the world.

Radical may be the wrong word. How about principled? I'd call Sanders that.

Folks, always bear in mind that Todd is not a patriotic citizen of the US:

Whenever Todd refers to " the US ", I'd suggest reading it as, " my wallet ". This will cut through his disingenuous efforts, and reveal his true meaning. 

It's funny but I don't see any of Todd's comments as disingenuous. He's gotten my goat before but the accusation of dishonesty seems a strange one. He's brash. That's the long and short of it IMO. Again, IMO only, but I think people here might try to read his comments minus the brashness. It's just an opinion but never a disingenuous one or an unknowledgeable one. IMO. I certainly disagree a lot but I'm a little puzzled at the the level of annoyance everyone expresses. Yes, I've been there but I'm thinking how to be less sensitive, especially when none of these opinions are personal. They may be pompous, but pomposity isn't a personal attack. Why is everyone so sensitive re: Todd's opinions? Is it possible they're annoying precisely because, wrong or right though they may be, they're well-constructed arguments based on knowledge?
Alright. I'm done sticking my neck out for the pariah.

[Madiel]

He frequently gives the impression of trolling, that's one reason why. Not this particular thread, but non-music threads in general. I mean, he once trolled me on the movies thread. Post after post designed for no other purpose than to irritate, ascribing views to me about a movie I explicitly stated I hadn't seen.

And then when it DOES appear to be a genuine opinion, it's as profoundly selfish as I've ever seen. More to the point it regularly demonstrates a complete incomprehension that relationships with others might (a) be useful, or (b) have value for their own sake.

Todd actively celebrates government breakdown and loss of structure. He shows no interest in the welfare of others in any way that I can recall. Almost every post is about whether there's something in a situation for him.

[milk]

He frequently gives the impression of trolling, that's one reason why. Not this particular thread, but non-music threads in general. I mean, he once trolled me on the movies thread. Post after post designed for no other purpose than to irritate, ascribing views to me about a movie I explicitly stated I hadn't seen.

And then when it DOES appear to be a genuine opinion, it's as profoundly selfish as I've ever seen. More to the point it regularly demonstrates a complete incomprehension that relationships with others might (a) be useful, or (b) have value for their own sake.

Todd actively celebrates government breakdown and loss of structure. He shows no interest in the welfare of others in any way that I can recall. Almost every post is about whether there's something in a situation for him.

I'll just leave the first part of it aside because I don't know about it and you've a right to your feelings about that personal experience. As for the the stuff pertaining to his views here, I see it differently. I also often disagree but I don't see the comments as expressions of selfishness and I don't particularly see anything trollish here. There have been a lot of arguments in the political thread and I don't remember them off-hand. It may be he has had that effect there, as you say. But, for here, I see it as legitimate to argue that - what shall we call it? - the non-intervention standpoint or the libertarian standpoint - is about what good actually comes from being the "world cop" or that picking and choosing winners and losers in the world may often cause blowback or harmful consequences, or that ulterior motives tend to drive hawkishness, or the that liberals want to have their cake and eat it too, that they're hypocritical, etc. He argues his positions with facts and I don't see these positions as obviously dishonest and, in fact, he often seems to have a great grasp of history and economic and political reality. I'm not saying I agree with him. I notice how he disappeared right at January 6th, obviously (it seems) because he could no longer argue the trump case.
Just my take but I think the arguments for smaller governments are legitimate arguments that have to be engaged. What people do around here (too much IMO when it comes to Todd) is scoff and bandwagon. It worries me when people have such an easy time scoffing over providing arguments. I think anyone can ignore any comment they wish. But I think we shouldn't be easy on ourselves when it comes to our positions and arguments.   

[Madiel]

I didn't talk about smaller government. I talked about the breakdown of government. There's a difference. 

[71 dB]

HOLY FUCK!!

Todd was right! Finland won't become a member of NATO! Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is against it! 

What happens to us now? 

[MusicTurner]

HOLY FUCK!!

Todd was right! Finland won't become a member of NATO! Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is against it! 

What happens to us now? 

It's because of his anti-Kurdish policies, where at least Sweden is more liberal towards the Kurds.There'll probably be some sort of payment solution for Turkey, one way or the other, making him accept (but only grudgingly, of course).

[Todd]

What would have happened if someone like Paul were elected instead of Trump? I don't like Paul but I always thought he was the real radical of the bunch. Paul vs. Sanders would have been it: two politicians with real conviction.

Rand Paul has less of a chance of becoming president than his father did, which means he has precisely no chance.  Sanders never had a chance.  Sticking strictly to foreign policy, if another non-interventionist is elected - Trump was as close to a non-interventionist as has been elected since the 1920s - not much would change, at least quickly.  A non-interventionist with conviction could pull the US out of more international agreements, but the president does not have unilateral power to withdraw from treaties, or at least no one is certain what would happen if the president did unilaterally make such a move.  Legal and political challenges would be certain, immediate, well organized, and very well funded.  The president could begin the political process of exiting NATO - so the world could see just how effective the 29 member organization could be absent US power - but that's a political non-starter.  True non-interventionists would most likely not focus their political energies on foreign policy, focusing on domestic matters.  NATO and other security relationships would be attended to by others.  That was actually one of the beauties of the last administration - it left many diplomatic roles empty for years.  We need more of that.  Benign neglect is not enough; active disruption is required.  Even that will not suffice unless the US elects multiple non-interventionist administrations in a short period of time.  Institutional interests - the military-industrial complex, if you will - work against the president when interests are threatened.

Finland won't become a member of NATO! Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is against it! 

What happens to us now? 

Anyone who has been reading any decent news sources has known that Erdoğan has opposed NATO expansion since the idea was floated.  What happens now is negotiation to learn Erdoğan's price.  I will hope against hope that Erdoğan is a man of conviction when it comes to stopping NATO expansion.

[Todd]

What people do around here is scoff and bandwagon.

Most people prefer echo chambers.  That is not unique to this site.

[71 dB]

It's because of his anti-Kurdish policies, where at least Sweden is more liberal towards the Kurds.There'll probably be some sort of payment solution for Turkey, one way or the other, making him accept (but only grudgingly, of course).

I bet half of NATO-countries if not more are "liberal towards the Kurds", or is the Netherlands and Norway oppressing the Kurds? Not to my knowledge!

I hate this fucking World so much! Finland wants to be in peace and now this shitshow is escalatinn into if the Kurds are threaded too well in the World! Fuck this shit! Why is Turkey in NATO? It doesn't share the Western values of other NATO countries, at least anymore. Can it be kicked out?

[Todd]

Why is Turkey in NATO? It doesn't share the Western values of other NATO countries, at least anymore. Can it be kicked out?

This type of sentiment warms my heart. 

[MusicTurner]

I bet half of NATO-countries if not more are "liberal towards the Kurds", or is the Netherlands and Norway oppressing the Kurds? Not to my knowledge!

I hate this fucking World so much! Finland wants to be in peace and now this shitshow is escalatinn into if the Kurds are threaded too well in the World! Fuck this shit! Why is Turkey in NATO? It doesn't share the Western values of other NATO countries, at least anymore. Can it be kicked out?

I quite agree wit a lot of what you are saying; it's also a matter of Erdogan using the subject domestically, and as a negotiation asset in general.

Turkey is a pretty important player in the region, also regarding the Ukraine war. For example it has closed the access to the Black Sea for any further Russian war ships going there. But it also imports a lot of Russian gas, and Russian tourists are very important for its vacation industry, so Turkey is one of the few ~European countries that has maintained direct flights to Russian cities. On the other hand, Turkey also has sympathy for the Muslim Crimean Tatars, that suffered from the Russian invasion of Crimea - a subject that hasn't been dealt enough with by the international media.