First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Post Reply Ukrainian NATO Bid
Posted 1/17/15 , edited 1/17/15

BlueOni wrote:


TheOmegaForce70941 wrote:

Let's just hope whatever they do doesn't lead to more fighting. And I think russia would prefer them to join the EU over NATO.


True on both counts, Omega.


Do you believe it is worth it for the US and its allies should get directly involved even if a second invasion is inevitable & if it means possible war with Russia? While it is true our relations with russia are being deemed the "second cold war", they are much more amicable than during the Soviet years. I have in mind more or less a "more harm than good" model in relations to that powder keg.
7121 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M
Offline
Posted 1/17/15
NATO integration for Ukraine is very important, not only is the country in the middle of a massive economic depression, but they have been moving from one failed government to another. Being a member of NATO comes with a degree of stability that, at this point, Ukraine needs more than just about anything else.
46382 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Sweden
Offline
Posted 1/17/15

symphonicecho wrote:


BlueOni wrote:


TheOmegaForce70941 wrote:

Let's just hope whatever they do doesn't lead to more fighting. And I think russia would prefer them to join the EU over NATO.


True on both counts, Omega.


Do you believe it is worth it for the US and its allies should get directly involved even if a second invasion is inevitable & if it means possible war with Russia? While it is true our relations with russia are being deemed the "second cold war", they are much more amicable than during the Soviet years. I have in mind more or less a "more harm than good" model in relations to that powder keg.


I don't think Ukraine should join forces with NATO, however I think EU is a better choice for them since that would help their country in a more economic way over NATO and it's military. Plus, I question if Ukraine have the money to join NATO.
2346 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
46
Offline
Posted 1/17/15
NATO is a paper tiger that only has two member-states that even come close to following the guidelines, USA and Poland.

There is no reason that NATO should have been looking at the Ukraine in the first place, and since we have been pissing all over Russia these last couple of years, it is no surprise that Putin has had enough of our shit.

Ukraine is not our problem, and if it is so important, let the other member-states of NATO handle it instead of sending in ONE aircraft and most of the spare parts to kept it in the air.
35017 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 1/17/15

symphonicecho wrote:

Do you believe it is worth it for the US and its allies should get directly involved even if a second invasion is inevitable & if it means possible war with Russia? While it is true our relations with russia are being deemed the "second cold war", they are much more amicable than during the Soviet years.


That's the tricky part: what specifically constitutes direct involvement can vary greatly, and while I might consider one thing to be worthwhile I might consider another to not be. Here is a press release from the White House stating what's being done:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/09/18/fact-sheet-us-support-ukraine

The numbers are of some importance, but let's focus primarily on what measures have been taken, are currently being taken, or are hoped for:



There's nothing in there that I'm not in favor of. There are both direct and indirect modes of intervention in that list, but there's nothing which would necessarily drag the US or its Western partners into a war with Russia and plenty which is vitally important for improving conditions and security in Ukraine.

It may be of interest to note that exercises designed to enhance Ukrainian maritime security are underway:

http://ukraine.usembassy.gov/statements/navy-01132015.html

and that efforts to improve Ukrainian energy security are getting the gears they need to have turning on the move:

http://ukraine.usembassy.gov/statements/us-eu-energy-12032014.html
6506 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 1/17/15
All I really know of this is that the US has dropped their embargo on Cuba and oil companies are pricing to kill the Russian economy, Venezuela be damned! Sounds like we're handling things like we always do.
31874 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 1/17/15 , edited 1/17/15
I am of the opinion that the Ukraine will never join NATO, not due to Ukraine not wanting to join, but rather, rational European powers seeing what a danger it would be. And even if it did proceed to join, then Russia would do something about it before anything was signed. If the Russians chose to, they could overrun the country easily and there isn't much NATO could do to stop them. Remember that quote from Civilization 2? Our words are backed by Nuclear Weapons. Enough to destroy the world even.

Antagonizing Russia is not worth the risk to global security. If the US wishes to antagonize Russia, they will loose Russian support on a number of key strategic US goals where global support is required, such as Syria and Iran. How much fun would it be if the Russians shipped plutonium to fill Iranian Nuclear Reactors; or shipped high powered missiles for the Syrian Government to use against the rebels? These are the US' strategic interests. The Ukraine, and antagonizing Russia are not. if anything, its a hobby.
35017 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 1/17/15 , edited 1/17/15

jehester wrote:

NATO is a paper tiger that only has two member-states that even come close to following the guidelines, USA and Poland.

There is no reason that NATO should have been looking at the Ukraine in the first place, and since we have been pissing all over Russia these last couple of years, it is no surprise that Putin has had enough of our shit.

Ukraine is not our problem, and if it is so important, let the other member-states of NATO handle it instead of sending in ONE aircraft and most of the spare parts to kept it in the air.


I will at least agree that the situation in Ukraine is of primary concern for Western Europe, and that it should be those NATO members which make the strongest commitments to integration if that's where things are to end up heading. I don't think that's it's especially likely that Ukraine will be admitted or that Western Europe will be the primary actors, but Ukraine has expressed an interest and NATO didn't immediately smack the option down. I'm less strongly in favor than before given the tremendous cost and exacerbation of the dimness of relations between Western nations and Russia, but it's still something I'd at least consider if all governments involved were sufficiently interested.

I don't know about NATO being a paper tiger considering it has multiple nuclear states in its membership, but you've made a reasonable demand concerning who ought to bear the brunt of the cost if Ukraine is to be pursued considering the US is a party whose interest in this situation is largely secondary. We both know that's not really how the cost would be divided, but that's how it should be.
9200 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M
Offline
Posted 1/17/15
ooog. not going to read through ALL the comments before posting, so it may have been covered. I just want to say my little bit first.

NATO isn' just a military treaty, but also an economic one if memory serves me correctly. NATO members tend to trade favorably with other members. This adds to the complexity of whether or not the Ukraine is really a favorable member for the rest of the group. For the most part, again, trying to remember this stuff as NATO hasn't come up in YEARS, (it was big for me when I was a kid because guess what? I remember the Berlin wall falling, and the end of the USSR, Since then, not too much). I mean, Putin is crazy, and he wants to resolidify the old scythe and hammer, so the Ukraine is of course important to him (personally and his political agenda), but the US and Europe....

I mean it's like our meddling in the middle east. We armed and trained Al Queda to combat the Russians, What happened? came back to bite us in the ass. We meddled in creating Israel. What happened? Nothing but unending conflict. And both end up costing us an arm and a leg in reparations and wars, and rebuilding, and foreign aid...

I agree with the first page poster that said either way, it's NOT going to benefit the Ukraine. And the economic disparity between the other nations and it isn't going to help. It's like why some European nations are not allowed into the EU. I honestly think we'd benefit more for sitting this one out, waiting for russia to invade (or whatever) and THEN "rescuing" Ukraine. As horrific as it is, I also feel to do otherwise will only do more damage to cast us as the enemies.
2346 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
46
Offline
Posted 1/17/15

BlueOni wrote:


jehester wrote:

NATO is a paper tiger that only has two member-states that even come close to following the guidelines, USA and Poland.

There is no reason that NATO should have been looking at the Ukraine in the first place, and since we have been pissing all over Russia these last couple of years, it is no surprise that Putin has had enough of our shit.

Ukraine is not our problem, and if it is so important, let the other member-states of NATO handle it instead of sending in ONE aircraft and most of the spare parts to kept it in the air.


I will at least agree that the situation in Ukraine is of primary concern for Western Europe, and that it should be those NATO members which make the strongest commitments to integration if that's where things are to end up heading. I don't think that's it's especially likely that Ukraine will be admitted or that Western Europe will be the primary actors, but Ukraine has expressed an interest and NATO didn't immediately smack the option down. I'm less strongly in favor than before given the tremendous cost and exacerbation of the dimness of relations between Western nations and Russia, but it's still something I'd at least consider if all governments involved were sufficiently interested.

I don't know about NATO being a paper tiger considering it has multiple nuclear states in its membership, but you've made a reasonable demand concerning who ought to bear the brunt of the cost if Ukraine is to be pursued considering the US is a party whose interest in this situation is largely secondary. We both know that's not really how the cost would be divided, but that's how it should be.


Nobody is going to want a full nuclear exchange in Europe, and back that with the fact that most NATO countries aren't "footing the bill" per NATO requirements. It's 2% of GDP.

Not many countries are hitting that mark.


The U.S. reduced its overall spending by an estimated 2%. That might not sound like much, but American spending comprised 72% of all NATO defense expenditures in 2013. Under President Obama's latest budget proposal, U.S. defense spending will fall from 4.6% of GDP in 2011 to 3.5% in fiscal 2015 and 2.9% by 2017 when he is supposed to leave his successor a country stronger than he inherited. On present trend it will be weaker.


But wait, there is more.


The combined GDP of NATO's 28 member states tops $30 trillion. Yet with few exceptions, most notably Poland, NATO defense expenditures have declined since the end of the Cold War. The nearby table shows the relative defense spending in 2013 for some key NATO countries as a share of GDP. Only four members—the U.S., U.K., Greece and Estonia—spent at least 2% of GDP on defense.

At 1.9%, France last year fell short of the 2% that is supposed to be the technical requirement for membership. Mr. Rasmussen's Denmark spent 1.4% of its GDP on defense, Angela Merkel's Germany 1.3%, Italy 1.2%, and Spain 0.9%. This is what a country spends if it thinks its main security threat is Belgium.

And the trend is down, as a majority of NATO members reduced defense spending in 2013. Among the more drastic defense cutters last year were Canada (7.6%), Slovenia (8.7%), Italy (10.3%), Hungary (11.9%) and Spain (11.9%).


Between France being a special snowflake, to member-states not even coming close to the numbers required under NATO, they can deal with it themselves.

9200 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M
Offline
Posted 1/17/15

TheOmegaForce70941 wrote:


BlueOni wrote:


TheOmegaForce70941 wrote:

Loans isn't the perfect resolution to the problem at hand, they still need to have some way to pay for it later and if they don't pay back then the loan will just increase in size to the point where they might not be avail to pay it back. I'm not saying that countries doesn't have loans, since I know most countries have loans that they'll never be avail to fully re-pay (heck, I live in Sweden and out government loan 10.000SEK every second... And just look at the US and how much they loan).

However a investment like NATO takes resources and money for as long as the country remains a member. Thus meaning that NATO is a long time investment and therefore they'll have 2 options. 1, they could stay as they are and hope that russia doesn't go in further then they already have. And 2, if they join NATO then they'll have to increase taxes like crazy since Ukraine doesn't have anything (to my knowledge) that sells to other countries in big quantities.


Right, like I said: cost is a major barrier to their entry. You made a really good point, and I yield it. I really don't think that Ukraine is going to join NATO, whether that be because a change in power occurs in Kiev and that option is removed from the table or if Russia puts an even tighter economic squeeze on them and forces their hand.

Another argument in the thread which has some meat is that if and when Ukraine did join NATO conflict with Russia would increase in likelihood. I've been expressing doubts that Russia would escalate to a large scale invasion in response to Ukraine's trying to join and that there's nothing actually lost in that regard for their trying since Russia has already invaded, but there is still the very real worry that having Ukraine as a NATO member would further complicate several countries' relations with Russia and increase the risk of an eventual conflagration.

I'm not as strongly in favor as I was before given the long-term geopolitical results would be very risky and the cost would be particularly prohibitive, but the idea is one which I think at least belongs on the table along with the alternatives.


Something that I think would make more sense for them to do is join the EU since that would force them to work with all other European countries and I think a country like Ukraine would profit greatly on that. However, I don't think NATO is something they should join due to their financial situations.


The EU would NEEEEEEEEVER take them. the economic restrictions are just too high.

On the other hand, economically, they might "benefit" from the EU. Turkey was for a while the EU's alternative to China for cheap ass goods, because it wasn't part of the EU (from what I was told), and the labor was super cheap comparative to the EU countries (this was all explained to me because we used to import stuff from France, and a lot of the products, the ones NOT labeled "made in China" had been stamped "made it Turkey".). The ukraine might be a decent source of cheap labor to the EU but members? that's laughable.
35017 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 1/17/15

serifsansserif wrote:

ooog. not going to read through ALL the comments before posting, so it may have been covered. I just want to say my little bit first.

NATO isn' just a military treaty, but also an economic one if memory serves me correctly. NATO members tend to trade favorably with other members. This adds to the complexity of whether or not the Ukraine is really a favorable member for the rest of the group. For the most part, again, trying to remember this stuff as NATO hasn't come up in YEARS, (it was big for me when I was a kid because guess what? I remember the Berlin wall falling, and the end of the USSR, Since then, not too much). I mean, Putin is crazy, and he wants to resolidify the old scythe and hammer, so the Ukraine is of course important to him (personally and his political agenda), but the US and Europe....

I mean it's like our meddling in the middle east. We armed and trained Al Queda to combat the Russians, What happened? came back to bite us in the ass. We meddled in creating Israel. What happened? Nothing but unending conflict. And both end up costing us an arm and a leg in reparations and wars, and rebuilding, and foreign aid...

I agree with the first page poster that said either way, it's NOT going to benefit the Ukraine. And the economic disparity between the other nations and it isn't going to help. It's like why some European nations are not allowed into the EU. I honestly think we'd benefit more for sitting this one out, waiting for russia to invade (or whatever) and THEN "rescuing" Ukraine. As horrific as it is, I also feel to do otherwise will only do more damage to cast us as the enemies.


You're thinking of Article 2, which states that members will seek to eliminate conflicts in their international economic policies and encourages increased economic cooperation between them. There used to be a committee specifically for handling economic collaboration between members, but that committee has been dissolved and its function has since been spread out across other committees. I'll amend my OP to reflect this for the sake of completeness of information.
Posted 1/17/15 , edited 1/17/15

BlueOni wrote:


symphonicecho wrote:

Do you believe it is worth it for the US and its allies should get directly involved even if a second invasion is inevitable & if it means possible war with Russia? While it is true our relations with russia are being deemed the "second cold war", they are much more amicable than during the Soviet years.


That's the tricky part: what specifically constitutes direct involvement can vary greatly, and while I might consider one thing to be worthwhile I might consider another to not be. Here is a press release from the White House stating what's being done:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/09/18/fact-sheet-us-support-ukraine

The numbers are of some importance, but let's focus primarily on what measures have been taken, are currently being taken, or are hoped for:



There's nothing in there that I'm not in favor of. There are both direct and indirect modes of intervention in that list, but there's nothing which would necessarily drag the US or its Western partners into a war with Russia and plenty which is vitally important for improving conditions and security in Ukraine.

It may be of interest to note that exercises designed to enhance Ukrainian maritime security are underway:

http://ukraine.usembassy.gov/statements/navy-01132015.html

and that efforts to improve Ukrainian energy security are getting the gears they need to have turning on the move:

http://ukraine.usembassy.gov/statements/us-eu-energy-12032014.html


You know that long long list of things you put in spoilers that the US is doing in Ukraine? That's my point, right there! The US needs to mind its own business and stop meddling in foreign affairs and "police the world." The US doesn't play Switzerland since Woodrow Wilson and WWI and II, so now it must aggressively seek out and mete out justice! Its a big bully!
Posted 1/18/15

jehester wrote:


BlueOni wrote:


jehester wrote:

NATO is a paper tiger that only has two member-states that even come close to following the guidelines, USA and Poland.

There is no reason that NATO should have been looking at the Ukraine in the first place, and since we have been pissing all over Russia these last couple of years, it is no surprise that Putin has had enough of our shit.

Ukraine is not our problem, and if it is so important, let the other member-states of NATO handle it instead of sending in ONE aircraft and most of the spare parts to kept it in the air.


I will at least agree that the situation in Ukraine is of primary concern for Western Europe, and that it should be those NATO members which make the strongest commitments to integration if that's where things are to end up heading. I don't think that's it's especially likely that Ukraine will be admitted or that Western Europe will be the primary actors, but Ukraine has expressed an interest and NATO didn't immediately smack the option down. I'm less strongly in favor than before given the tremendous cost and exacerbation of the dimness of relations between Western nations and Russia, but it's still something I'd at least consider if all governments involved were sufficiently interested.

I don't know about NATO being a paper tiger considering it has multiple nuclear states in its membership, but you've made a reasonable demand concerning who ought to bear the brunt of the cost if Ukraine is to be pursued considering the US is a party whose interest in this situation is largely secondary. We both know that's not really how the cost would be divided, but that's how it should be.


Nobody is going to want a full nuclear exchange in Europe, and back that with the fact that most NATO countries aren't "footing the bill" per NATO requirements. It's 2% of GDP.

Not many countries are hitting that mark.


The U.S. reduced its overall spending by an estimated 2%. That might not sound like much, but American spending comprised 72% of all NATO defense expenditures in 2013. Under President Obama's latest budget proposal, U.S. defense spending will fall from 4.6% of GDP in 2011 to 3.5% in fiscal 2015 and 2.9% by 2017 when he is supposed to leave his successor a country stronger than he inherited. On present trend it will be weaker.


But wait, there is more.


The combined GDP of NATO's 28 member states tops $30 trillion. Yet with few exceptions, most notably Poland, NATO defense expenditures have declined since the end of the Cold War. The nearby table shows the relative defense spending in 2013 for some key NATO countries as a share of GDP. Only four members—the U.S., U.K., Greece and Estonia—spent at least 2% of GDP on defense.

At 1.9%, France last year fell short of the 2% that is supposed to be the technical requirement for membership. Mr. Rasmussen's Denmark spent 1.4% of its GDP on defense, Angela Merkel's Germany 1.3%, Italy 1.2%, and Spain 0.9%. This is what a country spends if it thinks its main security threat is Belgium.

And the trend is down, as a majority of NATO members reduced defense spending in 2013. Among the more drastic defense cutters last year were Canada (7.6%), Slovenia (8.7%), Italy (10.3%), Hungary (11.9%) and Spain (11.9%).


Between France being a special snowflake, to member-states not even coming close to the numbers required under NATO, they can deal with it themselves.



You have a point with the cartoons. Some wouldn't like to see it, though.
2346 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
46
Offline
Posted 1/18/15

symphonicecho wrote:

You have a point with the cartoons. Some wouldn't like to see it, though.


It really would be nice if we stopped playing Team America World Police. Problem is, everybody wants us to do the job and then they stand back and watch.

How we have gone from the fall of the USSR, to join space missions and plans for the Russia/USA bridge to this crap is annoying.

It's time to slap the NSA and ATF upside their collective heads hard and just let the rest of the world deal with their own shit for awhile.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.