US scares Europe with ‘mythical’ Russian threat to justify military costs – Russian envoy to NATO

[Desertfalcon]

Why should italy bother about Ukraine?

Because my entire point is that it may not end with the Ukraine.

 

[MarkusS]

Because my entire point is that it may not end with the Ukraine.

i dont see russia as a threat but as a partner. It is laughable to believe it would attack italy or germany or france or whatever in western europe.

 

[Vergennes]

If any country in Europe, Eastern or Western, does not see Russia as a threat, they should leave NATO, as they have no realistic threats to need to be in that alliance in the first place, and likely are just trying to leech off us so they dont have to take care of their own defence.

NATO had no reasons to exist anymore as its main target was to deter the Warsaw pact,and it doesn't exist anymore.
NATO found a new reason to exist because of "Russia's resurgence" and the need to deter it,reassure the eastern european countries and the baltic states etc.

If we didn't need NATO in 1966,we don't need NATO in 2016....
Sadly,we lack some guys like De Gaulle.

There would be still American and Canadian bases in France....

 

[Desertfalcon]

i dont see russia as a threat but as a partner. It is laughable to believe it would attack italy or germany or france or whatever in western europe.

They don't have to. They only need to attack Estonia, or Latvia, or some other NATO member that while you may not care about, your country has pledged on it's honour, to defend.

 

[MarkusS]

They don't have to. They only need to attack Estonia, or Latvia, or some other NATO member that while you may not care about, your country has pledged on it's honour, to defend.

if you think italy would risk death for latvia or estonia, then you are mistaken

 

[Desertfalcon]

if you think italy would risk death for latvia or estonia, then you are mistaken

Then she should have never voted for their admittance to NATO. She did. I assume Italy's actions and word of honour, can be trusted. You are saying...they cant.

 

[Steve781]

Then she should have never voted for their admittance to NATO. She did. I assume Italy's actions and word of honour, can be trusted. You are saying...they cant.

The Baltic states' membership of NATO does look to me like a giant bluff. Would any country really want to risk a nuclear war over them?

 

[flamer84]

The Baltic states' membership of NATO does look to me like a giant bluff. Would any country really want to risk a nuclear war over them?

That includes Russia.You see,that's why they take you Westerners for weaklings with no more spirit in them,because they fool you with this 'we're crazy,don't mess with us' rhetoric.Russia stands to loose just as much and once NATO's security guarantees turn to be a bluff,the whole European deterent falls like a deck of cards and decades off alliance building will mean nothing.That's what Russia wants,a crack in the wall,the Western block separated,than you're easy pickings.

First there's Ukraine,than Lithuania,are we going to die for Latvia ? Surely not for Poland or Romania ? After that,Russia is at your door and your alliance doesn't exist anymore because it turned out those were just words and paper.Europe's security and well being after WW2 and 1990 was built on the premise that nobody uses force for teritorial gains in Europe but now Russia challenges that.In effect they challenge the status quo,compromise means weakness.

 

[Desertfalcon]

The Baltic states' membership of NATO does look to me like a giant bluff. Would any country really want to risk a nuclear war over them?

Any "bluff" would invite war, not prevent one. I seriously doubt that NATO member governments instructed to their representatives to vote for the admittance of the Baltic states, knowing that the pledge to jointly defend them was never going to be honoured and was a massive fraud.

That includes Russia.You see,that's why they take you Westerners for weaklings with no more spirit in them,because they fool you with this 'we're crazy,don't mess with us' rhetoric.Russia stands to loose just as much and once NATO's security guarantees turn to be a bluff,the whole European deterent falls like a deck of cards and decades off alliance building will mean nothing.That's what Russia wants,a crack in the wall,the Western block separated,than you're easy pickings.

First there's Ukraine,than Lithuania,are we going to die for Latvia ? Surely not for Poland or Romania ? After that,Russia is at your door and your alliance doesn't exist anymore because it turned out those were just words and paper.Europe's security and well being after WW2 and 1990 was built on the premise that nobody uses force for teritorial gains in Europe but now Russia challenges that.In effect they challenge the status quo,compromise means weakness.

While I agree with many of your sentiments, I would interject that just because a poster on PDF says that Baltic states membership was just a bluff, I have no doubt that it wasn’t. NATO members who voted their admittance understood full well what risks and obligations that entailed. I have no doubt that if Russia invaded the Baltic states, NATO would respond with devastating force. I know my country would.

US Army and Lithuanian Army troops train together at Gaiziunu training range, Lithuania.

USAF F-15's patrol Baltic states' airspace.

 

[flamer84]

Any "bluff" would invite war, not prevent one. I seriously doubt that NATO member governments instructed to their representatives to vote for the admittance of the Baltic states, knowing that the pledge to jointly defend them was never going to be honoured and was a massive fraud.



While I agree with many of your sentiments, I would interject that just because a poster on PDF says that Baltic states membership was just a bluff, I have no doubt that it wasn’t. NATO members who voted their admittance understood full well what risks and obligations that entailed. I have no doubt that if Russia invaded the Baltic states, NATO would respond with devastating force. I know my country would.

US Army and Lithuanian Army troops train together at Gaiziunu training range, Lithuania.

The US will but Western Europeans don't see the big picture.If they would have stood up to Hitler for Cehoslovakia in 1938 they wouldn't had to see him have breakfast in Paris in 1940.The bully knows the language of the strong but he also smells the fear of the weak and preys on that.

 

[anon45]

What's your stance on operations like Operation Ocean Shield off the coast of Somalia? Or Operation Active Endeavor in the Med?

Ocean Shield is counter piracy:

Active Endeavor is counterterrorism, but neither is Russia-centric. NATO's evolved beyond just a hedge against Russia.

Let's assume Markus is right and Italy doesn't see Russia as a threat - no matter the validity of that - removing Italy from NATO would limit its participation in global operations like these, what's your view on this?

And yes, I know they could still opt in, as China and South Korea have in Ocean Shield, but lets focus on the NATO SNMG aspect for naval cohesion. Having Italy leave NATO would effect its level of cooperation and integration with NATO operations like these.

Even without helping much against Russia, NATO members still provide the alliance with critical logistics, basing and international support including man and equipment power, diplomatic and economic support and critical cultural skills such as France's in North Africa.

That's true, NATO has evolved beyond Russia when it comes to reasons to exist, but conventionally, Russia is the only threat to any European nation, and most traditional reason for its existence.

I just get tired of the people who say that NATO is outdated and should be dissolved, especially if their own country is in NATO. It makes me want to ask them why they think their country is still in NATO if it is so outdated.

 

[anon45]

NATO had no reasons to exist anymore as its main target was to deter the Warsaw pact,and it doesn't exist anymore.
NATO found a new reason to exist because of "Russia's resurgence" and the need to deter it,reassure the eastern european countries and the baltic states etc.

If we didn't need NATO in 1966,we don't need NATO in 2016....
Sadly,we lack some guys like De Gaulle.

There would be still American and Canadian bases in France....

So why did France rejoin NATO, and why is France still in NATO after Sarkozy? Clearly France sees a continued need for NATO as part of its national defence..

 

[MarkusS]

Then she should have never voted for their admittance to NATO. She did. I assume Italy's actions and word of honour, can be trusted. You are saying...they cant.

I understand that. But treaties are not forever. I expect that our leaders constantly check the risks for our nation.

You know what this means? To calculate risks and see whats best to be done against it. There cant be any automatisation in this process. Italy won´t go to war if russia attacks Latvia or estonia. Italy also wont fight for turkey.

You could see this in last winter, when the russian plane was shot down. Germany, france and italy as well as spain said from day one if russia choses to attack turkey in this case, turkey will stand for itself.

 

[xyxmt]

and scares Arab countries of Evil Iranians, and Indians of Evil Pakistanis and Pakistanis of Evil Indians and now entire far east and Indian of Evil China. Arms business is the biggest business these days

 

[Desertfalcon]

You know what this means? To calculate risks and see whats best to be done against it. There cant be any automatisation in this process. Italy won´t go to war if russia attacks Latvia or estonia. Italy also wont fight for turkey.

I hope you are wrong but as I said, if you are not, then that means Italy's actions and her word can no longer be trusted. Belonging to NATO by definition, entails automation and Italy is fully aware of that. The central principle of NATO is, "An attack against one, is an attack against all."