RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Obviously not to defend Australian democracy, since partner status entails no such commitment on our part. I'm sure it was meant to provide our operations with financial and other assistance, as well as give us bragging rights to a bigger "international coalition."

A much better question is why we're considering member status for Ukraine, a notoriously corrupt regime known for ethnic, religious, and political persecutions. Defending democracy is hardly a plausible explanation there, either.

---

Why is it so bad to admit nations that want to join the Western Economy and have security? Why do they have to pass some moral barometer to be worthy? Being strategically located is not enough? Having more Ag land than the rest of Europe combined doesn't count?

---

It's not entirely an either/or choice between participating in the Western economy and the Russian economy. To the extent that it is a choice, Russia has interests in Ukraine which were undisputed at the time NATO was formed. Those interests didn't disappear with the Soviet Union. Both Russia and the West have made offers to Ukraine. Ukraine was prepared to accept what it considered a better deal from Russia. The 2014 coup changed that, and now of course we recognize the post-coup policy as the only legitimate one. Quite convenient for us, but there's more to it than we like to pretend.

---

As US citizens, shouldn't that be a good thing that is convenient for us and works out?

---

Probably depends on if you are in a position to capitalize financially on the USA adding another province-vassal to the empire.

For instance out sourcing our manufacturing base made some Americans insanely wealthy…and impoverished millions more working class men and women.

Mixed bag in the end

---

Wait a minute. Nations going from Russian-based economic system to the EU/US/Japanese based economic system do much better and the quality of life goes up. So, how is the US "adding another province-vassal" bad for the province-vassal state? You are telling us that Latvia, Lithiuania, Estonia, Poland, Romania, and all the rest were better off under Russia's grip? Venezuela is a better place now??? North Korea is a better qualit of life than South Korea? Who are you trying to kid?

---

if we are to call the American-led liberal order an empire, it would be the first voluntary empire in the world which every single member begged to join, in which not a single member had to be invaded to join.

Red: The "empire" jargon is straight-up Russian agitprop.

---

[The Oxford dictionary defines empire as: 'Paramount influence, absolute sway, supreme command or control'; how suiting such terminology is to define the current disposition of the United States. Over the past century the U.S. has risen to be the undisputed world power, with its tentacles of influence sprawled across the globe, leaving almost no state untouched.]

https://www.e-ir.info/2009/05/28/the-united-states-global-empire/

---

I think you are confusing protecting trade with empire. I would counter by saying the Roman Alliances could not go against Rome or leave if they chose. In addition, many of these areas felt occupied. Name one Nation in NATO, in Asia or elsewhere that has to go with US demands.

---

Buddy...we had a war in 1861 that killed close to 700,000+ people when 11 American States tried to leave.

Even if you draw a distinction between American States and Allied foreign States....nothing over the past 40 years has given us any indication that the USA powers that be would allow say Poland to leave the Western sphere and enter into the Russian sphere.

Or would allow say S. Korea to leave the Western bloc and enter the orbit of Red China.

The Empire of the USA is a fact....how you feel about it is up to you.

p.s.

The Roman empire was build and trade and trust...the same as the modern USA empire. That is part of what made/makes both so strong. Far stronger than its competitors.

---

You are so full of it. Comparing the Civil War to Roman expansion? Yeah, Judea, Gaul and Egypt were comparable to South Caroline, Virginia and Florida?

Rome was build with trust?

---

Yes you non-educated googootz ...it was in fact built with trust.

Read the link I gave you and buy a ****ing book.

The Roman Republic and later Empire was built on a foundation of trust and alliance...the conquest part was and is exaggerated.

Had you shown a Roman the Mediterranean sea filled in as red or purple and said that was their empire they would not have known or understood what you were talking about. They had allied and trade partners...but did not consider themselves to have an empire for many many generations into the future. And even then they gave Roman citizenship to all the peoples of their allies in 12 CE, when Caracalla granted citizenship to all free inhabitants of the Empire.

https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/empires-of-trust-how-rome-built--and-america-is-building--a-new-world_thomas-f-madden/337339/item/2934730/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=high_vol_backlist_standard_shopping_customer_aquistion&utm_adgroup=&utm_term=&utm_content=659174113139&gclid=CjwKCAjwg-GjBhBnEiwAMUvNW7XR4bhLJ9kluoW1D81tfQ8w0xjg_OEBFevZzmVlAqWPNK4McVdZdxoC6OkQAvD_BwE#idiq=2934730&edition=4575846

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/capsule-review/2009-11-01/empires-trust-how-rome-built-and-america-building-new-world

p.s.

A multi-ethnic, multi-linguist empire that spanned an enormous 5 million square kilometres and spanned from London to Babylon could not have been built and sustained over the centuries on mere conquest alone.

---

I know the book you are talking about, it is one persons view. I think you are missing the Author's point, he was arguing that you can't just compare the two. It was a response to "Bush = Hilter" comparisons, an entertaining comparison of the Roman and American empires. Are you always swayed by one book?

Loved this review: "Americans are famously illiterate in their knowledge of history. This, of course, does not stop them from pontificating noisily about history, and drawing inapt parallels between contemporary events and their supposed historic analogues. The most popular in the last decade is probably "Bush = Hitler," but a hardy perennial is the cry "America is the new Rome!"

We are not an Empire in the terms that Rome was an Empire. Second, Rome was built and maintained through conquest. The Republic grew through war. See below, the map does not agree with your opinion. Each expansion by the Republic, was a war and finally Julius Caesar, not a very warlike guy. A regular Peace-nik!

---

If you read the book you would know that the Republic grew not only through war...but through the enrollment of allies and trade partners.

Simply saying the Roman world was a product of only military conquest is a simplistic view.

Roman allies even fought not to get out from under Roman rule....but to be more greatly incorporated into the Roman imperium. Read about the Social war 91-87 b.c.

Go read the book...its eye opening. And you are mistaken that Thomas Madden says that the modern American imperium is just a copy of the ancient Roman Empire...he never makes that claim.

He simply discusses the way that great powers built on trust and trade are long enduring.

Again you have a hard time accepting this because you are under the false impression that Rome was built on conquest alone.

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Obviously not to defend Australian democracy, since partner status entails no such commitment on our part. I'm sure it was meant to provide our operations with financial and other assistance, as well as give us bragging rights to a bigger "international coalition."

A much better question is why we're considering member status for Ukraine, a notoriously corrupt regime known for ethnic, religious, and political persecutions. Defending democracy is hardly a plausible explanation there, either.

---

Why is it so bad to admit nations that want to join the Western Economy and have security? Why do they have to pass some moral barometer to be worthy? Being strategically located is not enough? Having more Ag land than the rest of Europe combined doesn't count?

---

It's not entirely an either/or choice between participating in the Western economy and the Russian economy. To the extent that it is a choice, Russia has interests in Ukraine which were undisputed at the time NATO was formed. Those interests didn't disappear with the Soviet Union. Both Russia and the West have made offers to Ukraine. Ukraine was prepared to accept what it considered a better deal from Russia. The 2014 coup changed that, and now of course we recognize the post-coup policy as the only legitimate one. Quite convenient for us, but there's more to it than we like to pretend.

---

As US citizens, shouldn't that be a good thing that is convenient for us and works out?

---

Probably depends on if you are in a position to capitalize financially on the USA adding another province-vassal to the empire.

For instance out sourcing our manufacturing base made some Americans insanely wealthy…and impoverished millions more working class men and women.

Mixed bag in the end

---

Wait a minute. Nations going from Russian-based economic system to the EU/US/Japanese based economic system do much better and the quality of life goes up. So, how is the US "adding another province-vassal" bad for the province-vassal state? You are telling us that Latvia, Lithiuania, Estonia, Poland, Romania, and all the rest were better off under Russia's grip? Venezuela is a better place now??? North Korea is a better qualit of life than South Korea? Who are you trying to kid?

---

if we are to call the American-led liberal order an empire, it would be the first voluntary empire in the world which every single member begged to join, in which not a single member had to be invaded to join.

Red: The "empire" jargon is straight-up Russian agitprop.

---

[The Oxford dictionary defines empire as: 'Paramount influence, absolute sway, supreme command or control'; how suiting such terminology is to define the current disposition of the United States. Over the past century the U.S. has risen to be the undisputed world power, with its tentacles of influence sprawled across the globe, leaving almost no state untouched.]

https://www.e-ir.info/2009/05/28/the-united-states-global-empire/

---

I think you are confusing protecting trade with empire. I would counter by saying the Roman Alliances could not go against Rome or leave if they chose. In addition, many of these areas felt occupied. Name one Nation in NATO, in Asia or elsewhere that has to go with US demands.

---

Buddy...we had a war in 1861 that killed close to 700,000+ people when 11 American States tried to leave.

Even if you draw a distinction between American States and Allied foreign States....nothing over the past 40 years has given us any indication that the USA powers that be would allow say Poland to leave the Western sphere and enter into the Russian sphere.

Or would allow say S. Korea to leave the Western bloc and enter the orbit of Red China.

The Empire of the USA is a fact....how you feel about it is up to you.

p.s.

The Roman empire was build and trade and trust...the same as the modern USA empire. That is part of what made/makes both so strong. Far stronger than its competitors.

---

You are so full of it. Comparing the Civil War to Roman expansion? Yeah, Judea, Gaul and Egypt were comparable to South Caroline, Virginia and Florida?

Rome was build with trust?

---

Yes you non-educated googootz ...it was in fact built with trust.

Read the link I gave you and buy a ****ing book.

The Roman Republic and later Empire was built on a foundation of trust and alliance...the conquest part was and is exaggerated.

Had you shown a Roman the Mediterranean sea filled in as red or purple and said that was their empire they would not have known or understood what you were talking about. They had allied and trade partners...but did not consider themselves to have an empire for many many generations into the future. And even then they gave Roman citizenship to all the peoples of their allies in 12 CE, when Caracalla granted citizenship to all free inhabitants of the Empire.

https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/empires-of-trust-how-rome-built--and-america-is-building--a-new-world_thomas-f-madden/337339/item/2934730/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=high_vol_backlist_standard_shopping_customer_aquistion&utm_adgroup=&utm_term=&utm_content=659174113139&gclid=CjwKCAjwg-GjBhBnEiwAMUvNW7XR4bhLJ9kluoW1D81tfQ8w0xjg_OEBFevZzmVlAqWPNK4McVdZdxoC6OkQAvD_BwE#idiq=2934730&edition=4575846

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/capsule-review/2009-11-01/empires-trust-how-rome-built-and-america-building-new-world

p.s.

A multi-ethnic, multi-linguist empire that spanned an enormous 5 million square kilometres and spanned from London to Babylon could not have been built and sustained over the centuries on mere conquest alone.

---

I know the book you are talking about, it is one persons view. I think you are missing the Author's point, he was arguing that you can't just compare the two. It was a response to "Bush = Hilter" comparisons, an entertaining comparison of the Roman and American empires. Are you always swayed by one book?

Loved this review: "Americans are famously illiterate in their knowledge of history. This, of course, does not stop them from pontificating noisily about history, and drawing inapt parallels between contemporary events and their supposed historic analogues. The most popular in the last decade is probably "Bush = Hitler," but a hardy perennial is the cry "America is the new Rome!"

We are not an Empire in the terms that Rome was an Empire. Second, Rome was built and maintained through conquest. The Republic grew through war. See below, the map does not agree with your opinion. Each expansion by the Republic, was a war and finally Julius Caesar, not a very warlike guy. A regular Peace-nik!

---

If you read the book you would know that the Republic grew not only through war...but through the enrollment of allies and trade partners.

Simply saying the Roman world was a product of only military conquest is a simplistic view.

Roman allies even fought not to get out from under Roman rule....but to be more greatly incorporated into the Roman imperium. Read about the Social war 91-87 b.c.

Go read the book...its eye opening. And you are mistaken that Thomas Madden says that the modern American imperium is just a copy of the ancient Roman Empire...he never makes that claim.

He simply discusses the way that great powers built on trust and trade are long enduring.

Again you have a hard time accepting this because you are under the false impression that Rome was built on conquest alone.

---

I get the concept. I don't read the book the same way you do or give it the credence you do. No problem, we are allowed to disagree. There are books that resonate with me that others say are BS. This isn't Russia. It is an interesting concept, especially in regard to trying to apply history to the modern times. We are all guilty, what is going on in Ukraine has nothing to do with WW2 or a replay.

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Obviously not to defend Australian democracy, since partner status entails no such commitment on our part. I'm sure it was meant to provide our operations with financial and other assistance, as well as give us bragging rights to a bigger "international coalition."

A much better question is why we're considering member status for Ukraine, a notoriously corrupt regime known for ethnic, religious, and political persecutions. Defending democracy is hardly a plausible explanation there, either.

---

Why is it so bad to admit nations that want to join the Western Economy and have security? Why do they have to pass some moral barometer to be worthy? Being strategically located is not enough? Having more Ag land than the rest of Europe combined doesn't count?

---

It's not entirely an either/or choice between participating in the Western economy and the Russian economy. To the extent that it is a choice, Russia has interests in Ukraine which were undisputed at the time NATO was formed. Those interests didn't disappear with the Soviet Union. Both Russia and the West have made offers to Ukraine. Ukraine was prepared to accept what it considered a better deal from Russia. The 2014 coup changed that, and now of course we recognize the post-coup policy as the only legitimate one. Quite convenient for us, but there's more to it than we like to pretend.

---

As US citizens, shouldn't that be a good thing that is convenient for us and works out?

---

Probably depends on if you are in a position to capitalize financially on the USA adding another province-vassal to the empire.

For instance out sourcing our manufacturing base made some Americans insanely wealthy…and impoverished millions more working class men and women.

Mixed bag in the end

---

Wait a minute. Nations going from Russian-based economic system to the EU/US/Japanese based economic system do much better and the quality of life goes up. So, how is the US "adding another province-vassal" bad for the province-vassal state? You are telling us that Latvia, Lithiuania, Estonia, Poland, Romania, and all the rest were better off under Russia's grip? Venezuela is a better place now??? North Korea is a better qualit of life than South Korea? Who are you trying to kid?

---

if we are to call the American-led liberal order an empire, it would be the first voluntary empire in the world which every single member begged to join, in which not a single member had to be invaded to join.

Red: The "empire" jargon is straight-up Russian agitprop.

---

[The Oxford dictionary defines empire as: 'Paramount influence, absolute sway, supreme command or control'; how suiting such terminology is to define the current disposition of the United States. Over the past century the U.S. has risen to be the undisputed world power, with its tentacles of influence sprawled across the globe, leaving almost no state untouched.]

https://www.e-ir.info/2009/05/28/the-united-states-global-empire/

---

I think you are confusing protecting trade with empire. I would counter by saying the Roman Alliances could not go against Rome or leave if they chose. In addition, many of these areas felt occupied. Name one Nation in NATO, in Asia or elsewhere that has to go with US demands.

---

Buddy...we had a war in 1861 that killed close to 700,000+ people when 11 American States tried to leave.

Even if you draw a distinction between American States and Allied foreign States....nothing over the past 40 years has given us any indication that the USA powers that be would allow say Poland to leave the Western sphere and enter into the Russian sphere.

Or would allow say S. Korea to leave the Western bloc and enter the orbit of Red China.

The Empire of the USA is a fact....how you feel about it is up to you.

p.s.

The Roman empire was build and trade and trust...the same as the modern USA empire. That is part of what made/makes both so strong. Far stronger than its competitors.

---

You are so full of it. Comparing the Civil War to Roman expansion? Yeah, Judea, Gaul and Egypt were comparable to South Caroline, Virginia and Florida?

Rome was build with trust?

---

Yes you non-educated googootz ...it was in fact built with trust.

Read the link I gave you and buy a ****ing book.

The Roman Republic and later Empire was built on a foundation of trust and alliance...the conquest part was and is exaggerated.

Had you shown a Roman the Mediterranean sea filled in as red or purple and said that was their empire they would not have known or understood what you were talking about. They had allied and trade partners...but did not consider themselves to have an empire for many many generations into the future. And even then they gave Roman citizenship to all the peoples of their allies in 12 CE, when Caracalla granted citizenship to all free inhabitants of the Empire.

https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/empires-of-trust-how-rome-built--and-america-is-building--a-new-world_thomas-f-madden/337339/item/2934730/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=high_vol_backlist_standard_shopping_customer_aquistion&utm_adgroup=&utm_term=&utm_content=659174113139&gclid=CjwKCAjwg-GjBhBnEiwAMUvNW7XR4bhLJ9kluoW1D81tfQ8w0xjg_OEBFevZzmVlAqWPNK4McVdZdxoC6OkQAvD_BwE#idiq=2934730&edition=4575846

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/capsule-review/2009-11-01/empires-trust-how-rome-built-and-america-building-new-world

p.s.

A multi-ethnic, multi-linguist empire that spanned an enormous 5 million square kilometres and spanned from London to Babylon could not have been built and sustained over the centuries on mere conquest alone.

---

I know the book you are talking about, it is one persons view. I think you are missing the Author's point, he was arguing that you can't just compare the two. It was a response to "Bush = Hilter" comparisons, an entertaining comparison of the Roman and American empires. Are you always swayed by one book?

Loved this review: "Americans are famously illiterate in their knowledge of history. This, of course, does not stop them from pontificating noisily about history, and drawing inapt parallels between contemporary events and their supposed historic analogues. The most popular in the last decade is probably "Bush = Hitler," but a hardy perennial is the cry "America is the new Rome!"

We are not an Empire in the terms that Rome was an Empire. Second, Rome was built and maintained through conquest. The Republic grew through war. See below, the map does not agree with your opinion. Each expansion by the Republic, was a war and finally Julius Caesar, not a very warlike guy. A regular Peace-nik!

---

If you read the book you would know that the Republic grew not only through war...but through the enrollment of allies and trade partners.

Simply saying the Roman world was a product of only military conquest is a simplistic view.

Roman allies even fought not to get out from under Roman rule....but to be more greatly incorporated into the Roman imperium. Read about the Social war 91-87 b.c.

Go read the book...its eye opening. And you are mistaken that Thomas Madden says that the modern American imperium is just a copy of the ancient Roman Empire...he never makes that claim.

He simply discusses the way that great powers built on trust and trade are long enduring.

Again you have a hard time accepting this because you are under the false impression that Rome was built on conquest alone.

---

I get the concept. I don't read the book the same way you do or give it the credence you do. No problem, we are allowed to disagree. There are books that resonate with me that others say are BS. This isn't Russia. It is an interesting concept, especially in regard to trying to apply history to the modern times. We are all guilty, what is going on in Ukraine has nothing to do with WW2 or a replay.

---

Uh well it has something to do with it. If the USSR had lost WW2 then Ukraine would belong to Nazi Germany and be Reichskommissariat Ukraine and not a state at all.

We would not be witnessing a fight between Kyiv (backed up by the USA empire) vs Moscow (backed up economically by China) but would be seeing something perhaps like a rebel Ukrainian nationalist movement vs the German occupying forces.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[The United States has committed itself to expanding NATO to Russia's borders. NATO, of course, stands for "North Atlantic Treaty Organization." A nave onlooker might ask why countries like Bulgaria, Finland, and Poland would be included in such a treaty. The answer is pretty simple: NATO has nothing to do with the North Atlantic. It is an anti-Russian military alliance.

Russia knew (or, rather, knows) that Ukraine has been courting both the European Union and NATO. Kiev wants to unite itself politically, economically, and militarily to the West. That would mean the United States has a right to place more troops and artillery on Russia's border. Russia didn't like that, and so it lashed out.
But the question is why does the United States want to put troops and artillery on Russia's border? Why has it maintained and, indeed, expanded this anti-Russian alliance, even though its original objective (i.e., the destruction of the Soviet Union) has been accomplished?

Our leaders have been clear on that point. To quote Richard Moore, the current chief of MI6: "With the tragedy and destruction unfolding so distressingly in Ukraine, we should remember the values and hard-won freedoms that distinguish us from Putin, none more than LGBT+ rights."
This isn't Kremlin disinformation. These are the words coming from the horse's mouth. We hate Russia because they are mean to the gays.
Deacon Nicholas Kotar, the great novelist and translator, gave a wider view:

Quote:

---

What the Russian government is doing is setting a red line to the spread of NGO-style liberal democracy. And Ukraine, unfortunately, has been a buffer zone, and a kind of test-case, for the spread, not of a political system, but of a system of values, that is espoused by the elites only....The problem is that with all these colored revolutions, no matter how you look at it, the thing that comes in together with the money is an insistence, unfortunately, on the adoption of the Western liberal cultural milieu. It happened in Georgia, it happened in Ukraine, it happened everywhere.

---

Ultimately, this isn't about Russia. It's not even about Ukraine. It's about us. Western elites want us to believe that the triumph of "NGO-style liberal democracy" is inevitable everywhere. But it's not. Russia is living proof of that.]

---

By contrast, when NATO expanded into the former Warsaw Pact nations and the Baltics, no permanent bases with standing maneuver units were stationed there.

---

Again, this is not true. Poland hosts both the forward command of the Army V Corps, first announced in 2020, and the "semi-permanent" headquarters of the 3rd Armored Brigade Combat Team of the 4th Infantry Division, which has been there since 2017 (and also has a rotational presence in Estonia and Latvia).

---

and what you say is true, but misleading. A forward command post is not a combat unit. There are no permanent bases with combat units permanently stationed in the former Warsaw Pact countries, out of deference to Russian sensitivities. the F-16s on Combat Air Patrol over Romania are permanently stationed in Germany and Italy. Those aircraft were maintained and fueled from their home bases. Yes, they landed on a "Nato airbase" in Romania. But the fuel, the refueling tankers, cargo flights of spare parts, etc....took off every few hours from home base back in Italy and Germany. ....because we do not permanently station combat aircraft in Romania, out of deference to Russia. We do, however, maintain the infrastructure in fmr WP countries to quickly receive those aircraft if/when needed. But they "live" in Germany and Italy. (and those bases in Germany and Italy had to bring in aircraft (mostly F-35s and F-15s) from elsewhere in the DOD to fulfill the mission of those F-16's sent to Romania.)

So my statement is both correct and true. We have no permanent stationing of combat units in fmr WP.

Out of deference to Russia.

Who invaded Ukraine anyway.

So what did that deference buy us?

Nothing.

It demonstrated weakness.

Russia exploited it.

Need to station armored divisions and combat aircraft in fmr WP nations soon.

To avoid showing further weakness to Russia.

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Obviously not to defend Australian democracy, since partner status entails no such commitment on our part. I'm sure it was meant to provide our operations with financial and other assistance, as well as give us bragging rights to a bigger "international coalition."

A much better question is why we're considering member status for Ukraine, a notoriously corrupt regime known for ethnic, religious, and political persecutions. Defending democracy is hardly a plausible explanation there, either.

---

Why is it so bad to admit nations that want to join the Western Economy and have security? Why do they have to pass some moral barometer to be worthy? Being strategically located is not enough? Having more Ag land than the rest of Europe combined doesn't count?

---

It's not entirely an either/or choice between participating in the Western economy and the Russian economy. To the extent that it is a choice, Russia has interests in Ukraine which were undisputed at the time NATO was formed. Those interests didn't disappear with the Soviet Union. Both Russia and the West have made offers to Ukraine. Ukraine was prepared to accept what it considered a better deal from Russia. The 2014 coup changed that, and now of course we recognize the post-coup policy as the only legitimate one. Quite convenient for us, but there's more to it than we like to pretend.

---

As US citizens, shouldn't that be a good thing that is convenient for us and works out?

---

Probably depends on if you are in a position to capitalize financially on the USA adding another province-vassal to the empire.

For instance out sourcing our manufacturing base made some Americans insanely wealthy…and impoverished millions more working class men and women.

Mixed bag in the end

---

Wait a minute. Nations going from Russian-based economic system to the EU/US/Japanese based economic system do much better and the quality of life goes up. So, how is the US "adding another province-vassal" bad for the province-vassal state? You are telling us that Latvia, Lithiuania, Estonia, Poland, Romania, and all the rest were better off under Russia's grip? Venezuela is a better place now??? North Korea is a better qualit of life than South Korea? Who are you trying to kid?

---

if we are to call the American-led liberal order an empire, it would be the first voluntary empire in the world which every single member begged to join, in which not a single member had to be invaded to join.

Red: The "empire" jargon is straight-up Russian agitprop.

---

[The Oxford dictionary defines empire as: 'Paramount influence, absolute sway, supreme command or control'; how suiting such terminology is to define the current disposition of the United States. Over the past century the U.S. has risen to be the undisputed world power, with its tentacles of influence sprawled across the globe, leaving almost no state untouched.]

https://www.e-ir.info/2009/05/28/the-united-states-global-empire/

---

I think you are confusing protecting trade with empire. I would counter by saying the Roman Alliances could not go against Rome or leave if they chose. In addition, many of these areas felt occupied. Name one Nation in NATO, in Asia or elsewhere that has to go with US demands.

---

Buddy...we had a war in 1861 that killed close to 700,000+ people when 11 American States tried to leave.

Even if you draw a distinction between American States and Allied foreign States....nothing over the past 40 years has given us any indication that the USA powers that be would allow say Poland to leave the Western sphere and enter into the Russian sphere.

Or would allow say S. Korea to leave the Western bloc and enter the orbit of Red China.

The Empire of the USA is a fact....how you feel about it is up to you.

p.s.

The Roman empire was build and trade and trust...the same as the modern USA empire. That is part of what made/makes both so strong. Far stronger than its competitors.

---

You are so full of it. Comparing the Civil War to Roman expansion? Yeah, Judea, Gaul and Egypt were comparable to South Caroline, Virginia and Florida?

Rome was build with trust?

---

Yes you non-educated googootz ...it was in fact built with trust.

Read the link I gave you and buy a ****ing book.

The Roman Republic and later Empire was built on a foundation of trust and alliance...the conquest part was and is exaggerated.

Had you shown a Roman the Mediterranean sea filled in as red or purple and said that was their empire they would not have known or understood what you were talking about. They had allied and trade partners...but did not consider themselves to have an empire for many many generations into the future. And even then they gave Roman citizenship to all the peoples of their allies in 12 CE, when Caracalla granted citizenship to all free inhabitants of the Empire.

https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/empires-of-trust-how-rome-built--and-america-is-building--a-new-world_thomas-f-madden/337339/item/2934730/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=high_vol_backlist_standard_shopping_customer_aquistion&utm_adgroup=&utm_term=&utm_content=659174113139&gclid=CjwKCAjwg-GjBhBnEiwAMUvNW7XR4bhLJ9kluoW1D81tfQ8w0xjg_OEBFevZzmVlAqWPNK4McVdZdxoC6OkQAvD_BwE#idiq=2934730&edition=4575846

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/capsule-review/2009-11-01/empires-trust-how-rome-built-and-america-building-new-world

p.s.

A multi-ethnic, multi-linguist empire that spanned an enormous 5 million square kilometres and spanned from London to Babylon could not have been built and sustained over the centuries on mere conquest alone.

---

I know the book you are talking about, it is one persons view. I think you are missing the Author's point, he was arguing that you can't just compare the two. It was a response to "Bush = Hilter" comparisons, an entertaining comparison of the Roman and American empires. Are you always swayed by one book?

Loved this review: "Americans are famously illiterate in their knowledge of history. This, of course, does not stop them from pontificating noisily about history, and drawing inapt parallels between contemporary events and their supposed historic analogues. The most popular in the last decade is probably "Bush = Hitler," but a hardy perennial is the cry "America is the new Rome!"

We are not an Empire in the terms that Rome was an Empire. Second, Rome was built and maintained through conquest. The Republic grew through war. See below, the map does not agree with your opinion. Each expansion by the Republic, was a war and finally Julius Caesar, not a very warlike guy. A regular Peace-nik!

---

If you read the book you would know that the Republic grew not only through war...but through the enrollment of allies and trade partners.

Simply saying the Roman world was a product of only military conquest is a simplistic view.

Roman allies even fought not to get out from under Roman rule....but to be more greatly incorporated into the Roman imperium. Read about the Social war 91-87 b.c.

Go read the book...its eye opening. And you are mistaken that Thomas Madden says that the modern American imperium is just a copy of the ancient Roman Empire...he never makes that claim.

He simply discusses the way that great powers built on trust and trade are long enduring.

Again you have a hard time accepting this because you are under the false impression that Rome was built on conquest alone.

---

I get the concept. I don't read the book the same way you do or give it the credence you do. No problem, we are allowed to disagree. There are books that resonate with me that others say are BS. This isn't Russia. It is an interesting concept, especially in regard to trying to apply history to the modern times. We are all guilty, what is going on in Ukraine has nothing to do with WW2 or a replay.

---

Uh well it has something to do with it. If the USSR had lost WW2 then Ukraine would belong to Nazi Germany and be Reichskommissariat Ukraine and not a state at all.

We would not be witnessing a fight between Kyiv (backed up by the USA empire) vs Moscow (backed up economically by China) but would be seeing something perhaps like a rebel Ukrainian nationalist movement vs the German occupying forces.

---

Geez, using that logic it is all the Treaty of Versailles fault. WW2 ended almost 80 years ago. At what point is it a non-issue with the current Governments?

---

True,

But it is amazing how much of the problems of the 20th century can be traced back to World War I

Peter hitchens said it was a fatal self inflicted wound for Western civilization.

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Obviously not to defend Australian democracy, since partner status entails no such commitment on our part. I'm sure it was meant to provide our operations with financial and other assistance, as well as give us bragging rights to a bigger "international coalition."

A much better question is why we're considering member status for Ukraine, a notoriously corrupt regime known for ethnic, religious, and political persecutions. Defending democracy is hardly a plausible explanation there, either.

---

Why is it so bad to admit nations that want to join the Western Economy and have security? Why do they have to pass some moral barometer to be worthy? Being strategically located is not enough? Having more Ag land than the rest of Europe combined doesn't count?

---

It's not entirely an either/or choice between participating in the Western economy and the Russian economy. To the extent that it is a choice, Russia has interests in Ukraine which were undisputed at the time NATO was formed. Those interests didn't disappear with the Soviet Union. Both Russia and the West have made offers to Ukraine. Ukraine was prepared to accept what it considered a better deal from Russia. The 2014 coup changed that, and now of course we recognize the post-coup policy as the only legitimate one. Quite convenient for us, but there's more to it than we like to pretend.

---

As US citizens, shouldn't that be a good thing that is convenient for us and works out?

---

Probably depends on if you are in a position to capitalize financially on the USA adding another province-vassal to the empire.

For instance out sourcing our manufacturing base made some Americans insanely wealthy…and impoverished millions more working class men and women.

Mixed bag in the end

---

Wait a minute. Nations going from Russian-based economic system to the EU/US/Japanese based economic system do much better and the quality of life goes up. So, how is the US "adding another province-vassal" bad for the province-vassal state? You are telling us that Latvia, Lithiuania, Estonia, Poland, Romania, and all the rest were better off under Russia's grip? Venezuela is a better place now??? North Korea is a better qualit of life than South Korea? Who are you trying to kid?

---

if we are to call the American-led liberal order an empire, it would be the first voluntary empire in the world which every single member begged to join, in which not a single member had to be invaded to join.

Red: The "empire" jargon is straight-up Russian agitprop.

---

1. Read up on how the Roman and British "empires" were actually built. Had you been transported back in time to ancient Rome the Romans would have denied they even had an empire...simply a large area of allied states, kingdoms, and cities who looked to Rome for trade and protection.

Thomas Madden does a great job of mapping this out and explaining how (outside of places like Gaul) the vast majority of places that ended up in the Roman sphere of influence or "empire" did so voluntarily and as equal partners and allies.

https://www.amazon.com/Empires-Trust-Built-America-Building/dp/0452295459
[Madden shows that the power of the ancient Roman republic and the U.S. was built on trust between allies, not the conquest of enemies. The far-reaching implications of this fact are essential reading for anyone who cares about the challenges we face now and in the years ahead.]

So its not the first time in history that empires have been forged by trade, alliance, and voluntary association. Far from it.

2. You seem to know a lot about Russian antiprop...far more than us regular guys. But the contention that the USA is now a global "empire" is pretty standard discourse here at home and has been since 1945. From Noam Chomsky liberals to Pat Buchanan paleo-cons it's a standard assessment. Some place that date of the accession to imperial power at different places within our history....Lincoln's victory over the States in 1865 (southern paleo-cons) or the USA's involvement in Vietnam (progressive RFK types) or the Spanish American war (Louis A. Perez leftists) but the contention that we are now a empire is simply not that controversial.

Liberal interventionist and neo-con types now come out and unabashedly defend the idea as a positive good for the world.

[Max Boot defends U.S. imperialism, writing, "U.S. imperialism has been the greatest force for good in the world during the past century. It has defeated communism and Nazism and has intervened against the Taliban and Serbian ethnic cleansing."]

[Schiller's formulation of the concept, cultural imperialism refers to the American Empire's "coercive and persuasive agencies, and their capacity to promote and universalize an American 'way of life' in other countries without any reciprocation of influence." According to Schiller, cultural imperialism "pressured, forced and bribed" societies to integrate with the U.S.'s expansive capitalist model but also incorporated them with attraction and persuasion by winning "the mutual consent, even solicitation of the indigenous rulers."

Newer research on cultural imperialism sheds light on how the US national security state partners with media corporations to spread US foreign policy and military-promoting media goods around the world. In Hearts and Mines: The US Empire's Culture Industry, Tanner Mirrlees builds upon the work of Herbert I. Schiller to argue that the US government and media corporations pursue different interests on the world stage (the former, national security, and the latter, profit), but structural alliances and the synergistic relationships between them support the co-production and global flow of Empire-extolling cultural and entertainment goods.]

3. Military power alone even within a network of trust and alliance between U.S. partners could be defined as empire or to make people feel better...an area of Imperium. The two ocean navy keeps the world sea lanes open and free of piracy of instance and our military bases in Europe keep the peace. "In 2015, David Vine's book Base Nation, found 800 U.S. military bases located outside of the U.S., including 174 bases in Germany, 113 in Japan, and 83 in South Korea. The total cost was estimated at $100 billion a year."

4. You simply have to determine how you feel about the Global Empire the the USA has built....good for the world or not. Good for the average America or not. But the idea that it does not exist would be the only thing that would be strange to argue.

[The Oxford dictionary defines empire as: 'Paramount influence, absolute sway, supreme command or control'; how suiting such terminology is to define the current disposition of the United States. Over the past century the U.S. has risen to be the undisputed world power, with its tentacles of influence sprawled across the globe, leaving almost no state untouched.]

https://www.e-ir.info/2009/05/28/the-united-states-global-empire/

---

Hooey. Out of context hooey at that.

here what your argument overlooks: Roman legions fought and defeated barbarian peoples along the totality of the Roman border. Did the Picts or Welsh or Britons or Irish or Gauls or Alemani or Catalonians or Basques or Berbers or Egyptians or Greeks or any of the Levanties or Arabs or Persians or Turks or Georgians or Armenians or (I could go on for a while)......reach out as sovereign equals for trade and alliance deals with Rome? No. Rome defeated them all, in combat. (well, about those Picts....) Sometimes the resistance was token (North African campaigns). Sometimes it was titanic (Gauls). Sometimes it was intermittent ebb & flow (Caucasus). Sometimes is was over in & done (Spain, etc...) Sometimes, it was brief (Persia). Sometimes it was constant (Belgians, Germans), Sometimes Rome even said "this ain't worth it" (Britannia) and withdrew. Ever heard of a Roman "Triumph? It's when a returning General/Caesar was allowed to parade capture booty/leaders into Rome. Read up on the Battle of Alesia. Read up on what happened to Vercengetorix. Then look at what happened to Gaul thereafter (alliance structures of local rulers).

Here's what your argument misunderstands: the alliances sorta were and were not alliances. But they almost always happened AFTER military conquest. What sorta made them alliances is that Rome understood there were not enough Romans to govern everything Rome could conquer. So they would establish an administration of local rule, often with great autonomy. King Herod is a great example. He could mostly rule as he wished, as long as he remained loyal to Rome, paid Rome taxes, sent levies for Roman wars, etc...... As long as he did that, he didn't have to worry about a Roman legion removing him from power. Which brings us to the part your argument ignores: That is not really an alliance. That is an imperial structure.

And here's what your argument gets wrong: We have nothing remotely approaching an imperial structure. Yes, we did invade and conquer Italy, Germany, and Japan in WWII......AFTER THEY ATTACKED US. But are they today truly Herod-esque puppets? Of course ont. if they withdrew from Nato or other alliance structures with the US, would we re-invade to re-impose new puppets? Not bloody likely. And what about all those other countries we didn't invade? France, Eastern Europe, Spain. Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Australia, Jordan, etc...... Are they merely allied with us out of fear of what WE will do to them?

Of course not. In almost every case, they are allied with us BECAUSE OF WHAT THEY FEAR OTHERS WILL DO TO THEM.

Really, really bad line of argument you've taken here, cherry-picking history to turn the USA into something it is not and never has been primarily because you don't like how much the whole program costs. IF you don't think it's all worth the nickle, fine. Reasonable position to take. But don't conjure it up into a dragon to overcompensate for a weak case that we get nothing for our foreign policy structures.

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Obviously not to defend Australian democracy, since partner status entails no such commitment on our part. I'm sure it was meant to provide our operations with financial and other assistance, as well as give us bragging rights to a bigger "international coalition."

A much better question is why we're considering member status for Ukraine, a notoriously corrupt regime known for ethnic, religious, and political persecutions. Defending democracy is hardly a plausible explanation there, either.

---

Why is it so bad to admit nations that want to join the Western Economy and have security? Why do they have to pass some moral barometer to be worthy? Being strategically located is not enough? Having more Ag land than the rest of Europe combined doesn't count?

---

It's not entirely an either/or choice between participating in the Western economy and the Russian economy. To the extent that it is a choice, Russia has interests in Ukraine which were undisputed at the time NATO was formed. Those interests didn't disappear with the Soviet Union. Both Russia and the West have made offers to Ukraine. Ukraine was prepared to accept what it considered a better deal from Russia. The 2014 coup changed that, and now of course we recognize the post-coup policy as the only legitimate one. Quite convenient for us, but there's more to it than we like to pretend.

---

As US citizens, shouldn't that be a good thing that is convenient for us and works out?

---

Probably depends on if you are in a position to capitalize financially on the USA adding another province-vassal to the empire.

For instance out sourcing our manufacturing base made some Americans insanely wealthy…and impoverished millions more working class men and women.

Mixed bag in the end

---

Wait a minute. Nations going from Russian-based economic system to the EU/US/Japanese based economic system do much better and the quality of life goes up. So, how is the US "adding another province-vassal" bad for the province-vassal state? You are telling us that Latvia, Lithiuania, Estonia, Poland, Romania, and all the rest were better off under Russia's grip? Venezuela is a better place now??? North Korea is a better qualit of life than South Korea? Who are you trying to kid?

---

if we are to call the American-led liberal order an empire, it would be the first voluntary empire in the world which every single member begged to join, in which not a single member had to be invaded to join.

Red: The "empire" jargon is straight-up Russian agitprop.

---

[The Oxford dictionary defines empire as: 'Paramount influence, absolute sway, supreme command or control'; how suiting such terminology is to define the current disposition of the United States. Over the past century the U.S. has risen to be the undisputed world power, with its tentacles of influence sprawled across the globe, leaving almost no state untouched.]

https://www.e-ir.info/2009/05/28/the-united-states-global-empire/

---

I think you are confusing protecting trade with empire. I would counter by saying the Roman Alliances could not go against Rome or leave if they chose. In addition, many of these areas felt occupied. Name one Nation in NATO, in Asia or elsewhere that has to go with US demands.

---

Buddy...we had a war in 1861 that killed close to 700,000+ people when 11 American States tried to leave.

Even if you draw a distinction between American States and Allied foreign States....nothing over the past 40 years has given us any indication that the USA powers that be would allow say Poland to leave the Western sphere and enter into the Russian sphere.

Or would allow say S. Korea to leave the Western bloc and enter the orbit of Red China.

The Empire of the USA is a fact....how you feel about it is up to you.

p.s.

The Roman empire was build and trade and trust...the same as the modern USA empire. That is part of what made/makes both so strong. Far stronger than its competitors.

---

You are so full of it. Comparing the Civil War to Roman expansion? Yeah, Judea, Gaul and Egypt were comparable to South Caroline, Virginia and Florida?

Rome was build with trust?

---

Yes you non-educated googootz ...it was in fact built with trust.

Read the link I gave you and buy a ****ing book.

The Roman Republic and later Empire was built on a foundation of trust and alliance...the conquest part was and is exaggerated.

Had you shown a Roman the Mediterranean sea filled in as red or purple and said that was their empire they would not have known or understood what you were talking about. They had allied and trade partners...but did not consider themselves to have an empire for many many generations into the future. And even then they gave Roman citizenship to all the peoples of their allies in 12 CE, when Caracalla granted citizenship to all free inhabitants of the Empire.

https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/empires-of-trust-how-rome-built--and-america-is-building--a-new-world_thomas-f-madden/337339/item/2934730/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=high_vol_backlist_standard_shopping_customer_aquistion&utm_adgroup=&utm_term=&utm_content=659174113139&gclid=CjwKCAjwg-GjBhBnEiwAMUvNW7XR4bhLJ9kluoW1D81tfQ8w0xjg_OEBFevZzmVlAqWPNK4McVdZdxoC6OkQAvD_BwE#idiq=2934730&edition=4575846

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/capsule-review/2009-11-01/empires-trust-how-rome-built-and-america-building-new-world

p.s.

A multi-ethnic, multi-linguist empire that spanned an enormous 5 million square kilometres and spanned from London to Babylon could not have been built and sustained over the centuries on mere conquest alone.

---

It was built on conquest.

It was maintained with de-centralized administrative structures coerced by military power.

To say that it was built and maintained on trust is flatly, demonstrably, woefully, ahistorically wrong.

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Obviously not to defend Australian democracy, since partner status entails no such commitment on our part. I'm sure it was meant to provide our operations with financial and other assistance, as well as give us bragging rights to a bigger "international coalition."

A much better question is why we're considering member status for Ukraine, a notoriously corrupt regime known for ethnic, religious, and political persecutions. Defending democracy is hardly a plausible explanation there, either.

---

Why is it so bad to admit nations that want to join the Western Economy and have security? Why do they have to pass some moral barometer to be worthy? Being strategically located is not enough? Having more Ag land than the rest of Europe combined doesn't count?

---

It's not entirely an either/or choice between participating in the Western economy and the Russian economy. To the extent that it is a choice, Russia has interests in Ukraine which were undisputed at the time NATO was formed. Those interests didn't disappear with the Soviet Union. Both Russia and the West have made offers to Ukraine. Ukraine was prepared to accept what it considered a better deal from Russia. The 2014 coup changed that, and now of course we recognize the post-coup policy as the only legitimate one. Quite convenient for us, but there's more to it than we like to pretend.

---

As US citizens, shouldn't that be a good thing that is convenient for us and works out?

---

Probably depends on if you are in a position to capitalize financially on the USA adding another province-vassal to the empire.

For instance out sourcing our manufacturing base made some Americans insanely wealthy…and impoverished millions more working class men and women.

Mixed bag in the end

---

Wait a minute. Nations going from Russian-based economic system to the EU/US/Japanese based economic system do much better and the quality of life goes up. So, how is the US "adding another province-vassal" bad for the province-vassal state? You are telling us that Latvia, Lithiuania, Estonia, Poland, Romania, and all the rest were better off under Russia's grip? Venezuela is a better place now??? North Korea is a better qualit of life than South Korea? Who are you trying to kid?

---

if we are to call the American-led liberal order an empire, it would be the first voluntary empire in the world which every single member begged to join, in which not a single member had to be invaded to join.

Red: The "empire" jargon is straight-up Russian agitprop.

---

[The Oxford dictionary defines empire as: 'Paramount influence, absolute sway, supreme command or control'; how suiting such terminology is to define the current disposition of the United States. Over the past century the U.S. has risen to be the undisputed world power, with its tentacles of influence sprawled across the globe, leaving almost no state untouched.]

https://www.e-ir.info/2009/05/28/the-united-states-global-empire/

---

I think you are confusing protecting trade with empire. I would counter by saying the Roman Alliances could not go against Rome or leave if they chose. In addition, many of these areas felt occupied. Name one Nation in NATO, in Asia or elsewhere that has to go with US demands.

---

Buddy...we had a war in 1861 that killed close to 700,000+ people when 11 American States tried to leave.

Even if you draw a distinction between American States and Allied foreign States....nothing over the past 40 years has given us any indication that the USA powers that be would allow say Poland to leave the Western sphere and enter into the Russian sphere.

Or would allow say S. Korea to leave the Western bloc and enter the orbit of Red China.

The Empire of the USA is a fact....how you feel about it is up to you.

p.s.

The Roman empire was build and trade and trust...the same as the modern USA empire. That is part of what made/makes both so strong. Far stronger than its competitors.

---

You are so full of it. Comparing the Civil War to Roman expansion? Yeah, Judea, Gaul and Egypt were comparable to South Caroline, Virginia and Florida?

Rome was build with trust?

---

Yes you non-educated googootz ...it was in fact built with trust.

Read the link I gave you and buy a ****ing book.

The Roman Republic and later Empire was built on a foundation of trust and alliance...the conquest part was and is exaggerated.

Had you shown a Roman the Mediterranean sea filled in as red or purple and said that was their empire they would not have known or understood what you were talking about. They had allied and trade partners...but did not consider themselves to have an empire for many many generations into the future. And even then they gave Roman citizenship to all the peoples of their allies in 12 CE, when Caracalla granted citizenship to all free inhabitants of the Empire.

https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/empires-of-trust-how-rome-built--and-america-is-building--a-new-world_thomas-f-madden/337339/item/2934730/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=high_vol_backlist_standard_shopping_customer_aquistion&utm_adgroup=&utm_term=&utm_content=659174113139&gclid=CjwKCAjwg-GjBhBnEiwAMUvNW7XR4bhLJ9kluoW1D81tfQ8w0xjg_OEBFevZzmVlAqWPNK4McVdZdxoC6OkQAvD_BwE#idiq=2934730&edition=4575846

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/capsule-review/2009-11-01/empires-trust-how-rome-built-and-america-building-new-world

p.s.

A multi-ethnic, multi-linguist empire that spanned an enormous 5 million square kilometres and spanned from London to Babylon could not have been built and sustained over the centuries on mere conquest alone.

---

I know the book you are talking about, it is one persons view. I think you are missing the Author's point, he was arguing that you can't just compare the two. It was a response to "Bush = Hilter" comparisons, an entertaining comparison of the Roman and American empires. Are you always swayed by one book?

Loved this review: "Americans are famously illiterate in their knowledge of history. This, of course, does not stop them from pontificating noisily about history, and drawing inapt parallels between contemporary events and their supposed historic analogues. The most popular in the last decade is probably "Bush = Hitler," but a hardy perennial is the cry "America is the new Rome!"

We are not an Empire in the terms that Rome was an Empire. Second, Rome was built and maintained through conquest. The Republic grew through war. See below, the map does not agree with your opinion. Each expansion by the Republic, was a war and finally Julius Caesar, not a very warlike guy. A regular Peace-nik!

---

If you read the book you would know that the Republic grew not only through war...but through the enrollment of allies and trade partners.

Simply saying the Roman world was a product of only military conquest is a simplistic view.

Roman allies even fought not to get out from under Roman rule....but to be more greatly incorporated into the Roman imperium. Read about the Social war 91-87 b.c.

Go read the book...its eye opening. And you are mistaken that Thomas Madden says that the modern American imperium is just a copy of the ancient Roman Empire...he never makes that claim.

He simply discusses the way that great powers built on trust and trade are long enduring.

Again you have a hard time accepting this because you are under the false impression that Rome was built on conquest alone.

---

I get the concept. I don't read the book the same way you do or give it the credence you do. No problem, we are allowed to disagree. There are books that resonate with me that others say are BS. This isn't Russia. It is an interesting concept, especially in regard to trying to apply history to the modern times. We are all guilty, what is going on in Ukraine has nothing to do with WW2 or a replay.

---

Uh well it has something to do with it. If the USSR had lost WW2 then Ukraine would belong to Nazi Germany and be Reichskommissariat Ukraine and not a state at all.

We would not be witnessing a fight between Kyiv (backed up by the USA empire) vs Moscow (backed up economically by China) but would be seeing something perhaps like a rebel Ukrainian nationalist movement vs the German occupying forces.

---

Geez, using that logic it is all the Treaty of Versailles fault. WW2 ended almost 80 years ago. At what point is it a non-issue with the current Governments?

---

True,

But it is amazing how much of the problems of the 20th century can be traced back to World War I

Peter hitchens said it was a fatal self inflicted wound for Western civilization.

---

The craziest thing about WW1 is that the Germans had the brits and French beat and if they would've just surrendered then there would've been no Hitler. The Zionists convinced the birts to bring the USA into the war and the rest is history.

Redbrickbear said:

---

He simply discusses the way that great powers built on trust and trade are long enduring.

Again you have a hard time accepting this because you are under the false impression that Rome was built on conquest alone.

---

again, words mean things.

"Great power" is not synonymous with "empire."

Rome was built on conquest. Their empire was maintained with puppet rulers who were allowed to rule as long as they remained loyal to Rome. Some thoroughly romanized, like Spain and France in particular. Others, notably the various small kingdoms in the Caucasus, would flit in & out of the empire, requiring new campaigns to to reimpose Roman control. the extreme example would be Britannia, where the tax base did not support the cost of maintenance, so Rome withdrew. But the key fact underlining it all was the Roman Legions. they provided the coercion that maintained the structure. it was a pure imperial structure very similar to the European "empires" of the colonial age.

The USA has a very different model, not empire at all. It was not at all built via conquest. It is not at all maintained by threat of conquest. It is maintained by mutually beneficial trade and political alliances with like-minded nations. Completely voluntary. To say that a US army base in Germany is identical in purpose to a Roman Legion base in Germany is unsupportable. The US army base in Germany is there to help defend Germany (and the rest of Western Europe) against Russian invasion, not to coerce German allegiance to the USA. The Roman Legion base in Germany was most definitely there to coerce German allegiance to Rome.

It is reasonable to say the two different models are both decentralized structures that derive significant benefits to the great power, but the assertion that both are empires is requires really bad epistemology.

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Obviously not to defend Australian democracy, since partner status entails no such commitment on our part. I'm sure it was meant to provide our operations with financial and other assistance, as well as give us bragging rights to a bigger "international coalition."

A much better question is why we're considering member status for Ukraine, a notoriously corrupt regime known for ethnic, religious, and political persecutions. Defending democracy is hardly a plausible explanation there, either.

---

Why is it so bad to admit nations that want to join the Western Economy and have security? Why do they have to pass some moral barometer to be worthy? Being strategically located is not enough? Having more Ag land than the rest of Europe combined doesn't count?

---

It's not entirely an either/or choice between participating in the Western economy and the Russian economy. To the extent that it is a choice, Russia has interests in Ukraine which were undisputed at the time NATO was formed. Those interests didn't disappear with the Soviet Union. Both Russia and the West have made offers to Ukraine. Ukraine was prepared to accept what it considered a better deal from Russia. The 2014 coup changed that, and now of course we recognize the post-coup policy as the only legitimate one. Quite convenient for us, but there's more to it than we like to pretend.

---

As US citizens, shouldn't that be a good thing that is convenient for us and works out?

---

Probably depends on if you are in a position to capitalize financially on the USA adding another province-vassal to the empire.

For instance out sourcing our manufacturing base made some Americans insanely wealthy…and impoverished millions more working class men and women.

Mixed bag in the end

---

Wait a minute. Nations going from Russian-based economic system to the EU/US/Japanese based economic system do much better and the quality of life goes up. So, how is the US "adding another province-vassal" bad for the province-vassal state? You are telling us that Latvia, Lithiuania, Estonia, Poland, Romania, and all the rest were better off under Russia's grip? Venezuela is a better place now??? North Korea is a better qualit of life than South Korea? Who are you trying to kid?

---

if we are to call the American-led liberal order an empire, it would be the first voluntary empire in the world which every single member begged to join, in which not a single member had to be invaded to join.

Red: The "empire" jargon is straight-up Russian agitprop.

---

[The Oxford dictionary defines empire as: 'Paramount influence, absolute sway, supreme command or control'; how suiting such terminology is to define the current disposition of the United States. Over the past century the U.S. has risen to be the undisputed world power, with its tentacles of influence sprawled across the globe, leaving almost no state untouched.]

https://www.e-ir.info/2009/05/28/the-united-states-global-empire/

---

I think you are confusing protecting trade with empire. I would counter by saying the Roman Alliances could not go against Rome or leave if they chose. In addition, many of these areas felt occupied. Name one Nation in NATO, in Asia or elsewhere that has to go with US demands.

---

Buddy...we had a war in 1861 that killed close to 700,000+ people when 11 American States tried to leave.

Even if you draw a distinction between American States and Allied foreign States....nothing over the past 40 years has given us any indication that the USA powers that be would allow say Poland to leave the Western sphere and enter into the Russian sphere.

Or would allow say S. Korea to leave the Western bloc and enter the orbit of Red China.

The Empire of the USA is a fact....how you feel about it is up to you.

p.s.

The Roman empire was build and trade and trust...the same as the modern USA empire. That is part of what made/makes both so strong. Far stronger than its competitors.

---

You are so full of it. Comparing the Civil War to Roman expansion? Yeah, Judea, Gaul and Egypt were comparable to South Caroline, Virginia and Florida?

Rome was build with trust?

---

p.s.

A multi-ethnic, multi-linguist empire that spanned an enormous 5 million square kilometres and spanned from London to Babylon could not have been built and sustained over the centuries on mere conquest alone.

---

It was built on conquest.

It was maintained with de-centralized administrative structures coerced by military power.

To say that it was built and maintained on trust is flatly, demonstrably, woefully, ahistorically wrong.

---

Madden discusses this.

The Empire in the West was built on conquest (pushing out or dominating less advanced peoples like the Celts and Germanics)...while in the more advanced and rich East the power of Rome was build on trade, alliance, and a reputation of Trust.

This has similarities to the modern USA (pushing out/pacifying the red Indians to the West...enrolling allies among the advanced States of Europe and East Asia)

Again Roman policy in the East was very different from its policy in the wild & untamed West.

For instance:

Bithynia (in modern Turkey) joined the empire and was not conquer for instance

[King Nicomedes IV of Bithynia died and, hoping to secure his kingdom from further Pontic aggression, bequeathed his entire kingdom to Rome. The Senate immediately voted to accept the kingdom as a province]

[In Egypt the Ptolemaic dynasty requested Roman troops be stationed in Egypt and that the Kingdom be enrolled as Roman allies.]

Many such cases

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

He simply discusses the way that great powers built on trust and trade are long enduring.

Again you have a hard time accepting this because you are under the false impression that Rome was built on conquest alone.

---

again, words mean things.

"Great power" is not synonymous with "empire."

---

Yes,

We have already gone over this:

[The Oxford dictionary defines empire as: 'Paramount influence, absolute sway, supreme command or control'; how suiting such terminology is to define the current disposition of the United States. Over the past century the U.S. has risen to be the undisputed world power, with its tentacles of influence sprawled across the globe, leaving almost no state untouched.]

If you want to say that the USA is not an empire because it is not ruled by an literal Emperor (one who held Imperium) and does not directly rule its vassal states...then fine.

But it certain is a Superpower exerting paramount influence, absolute sway, and supreme command over its sphere of influence...a sphere that is global in nature.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[The United States has committed itself to expanding NATO to Russia's borders. NATO, of course, stands for "North Atlantic Treaty Organization." A nave onlooker might ask why countries like Bulgaria, Finland, and Poland would be included in such a treaty. The answer is pretty simple: NATO has nothing to do with the North Atlantic. It is an anti-Russian military alliance.

Russia knew (or, rather, knows) that Ukraine has been courting both the European Union and NATO. Kiev wants to unite itself politically, economically, and militarily to the West. That would mean the United States has a right to place more troops and artillery on Russia's border. Russia didn't like that, and so it lashed out.
But the question is why does the United States want to put troops and artillery on Russia's border? Why has it maintained and, indeed, expanded this anti-Russian alliance, even though its original objective (i.e., the destruction of the Soviet Union) has been accomplished?

Our leaders have been clear on that point. To quote Richard Moore, the current chief of MI6: "With the tragedy and destruction unfolding so distressingly in Ukraine, we should remember the values and hard-won freedoms that distinguish us from Putin, none more than LGBT+ rights."
This isn't Kremlin disinformation. These are the words coming from the horse's mouth. We hate Russia because they are mean to the gays.
Deacon Nicholas Kotar, the great novelist and translator, gave a wider view:

Quote:

---

What the Russian government is doing is setting a red line to the spread of NGO-style liberal democracy. And Ukraine, unfortunately, has been a buffer zone, and a kind of test-case, for the spread, not of a political system, but of a system of values, that is espoused by the elites only....The problem is that with all these colored revolutions, no matter how you look at it, the thing that comes in together with the money is an insistence, unfortunately, on the adoption of the Western liberal cultural milieu. It happened in Georgia, it happened in Ukraine, it happened everywhere.

---

Ultimately, this isn't about Russia. It's not even about Ukraine. It's about us. Western elites want us to believe that the triumph of "NGO-style liberal democracy" is inevitable everywhere. But it's not. Russia is living proof of that.]

---

By contrast, when NATO expanded into the former Warsaw Pact nations and the Baltics, no permanent bases with standing maneuver units were stationed there.

---

Again, this is not true. Poland hosts both the forward command of the Army V Corps, first announced in 2020, and the "semi-permanent" headquarters of the 3rd Armored Brigade Combat Team of the 4th Infantry Division, which has been there since 2017 (and also has a rotational presence in Estonia and Latvia).

---

and what you say is true, but misleading. A forward command post is not a combat unit. There are no permanent bases with combat units permanently stationed in the former Warsaw Pact countries, out of deference to Russian sensitivities. the F-16s on Combat Air Patrol over Romania are permanently stationed in Germany and Italy. Those aircraft were maintained and fueled from their home bases. Yes, they landed on a "Nato airbase" in Romania. But the fuel, the refueling tankers, cargo flights of spare parts, etc....took off every few hours from home base back in Italy and Germany. ....because we do not permanently station combat aircraft in Romania, out of deference to Russia. We do, however, maintain the infrastructure in fmr WP countries to quickly receive those aircraft if/when needed. But they "live" in Germany and Italy. (and those bases in Germany and Italy had to bring in aircraft (mostly F-35s and F-15s) from elsewhere in the DOD to fulfill the mission of those F-16's sent to Romania.)

So my statement is both correct and true. We have no permanent stationing of combat units in fmr WP.

Out of deference to Russia.

Who invaded Ukraine anyway.

So what did that deference buy us?

Nothing.

It demonstrated weakness.

Russia exploited it.

Need to station armored divisions and combat aircraft in fmr WP nations soon.

To avoid showing further weakness to Russia.

---

They say that like it is a bad thing. I think it is great that we are getting permanent bases in Poland. If Germany doesn't want us, Poland sure does... Same with the Baltics.

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Obviously not to defend Australian democracy, since partner status entails no such commitment on our part. I'm sure it was meant to provide our operations with financial and other assistance, as well as give us bragging rights to a bigger "international coalition."

A much better question is why we're considering member status for Ukraine, a notoriously corrupt regime known for ethnic, religious, and political persecutions. Defending democracy is hardly a plausible explanation there, either.

---

Why is it so bad to admit nations that want to join the Western Economy and have security? Why do they have to pass some moral barometer to be worthy? Being strategically located is not enough? Having more Ag land than the rest of Europe combined doesn't count?

---

It's not entirely an either/or choice between participating in the Western economy and the Russian economy. To the extent that it is a choice, Russia has interests in Ukraine which were undisputed at the time NATO was formed. Those interests didn't disappear with the Soviet Union. Both Russia and the West have made offers to Ukraine. Ukraine was prepared to accept what it considered a better deal from Russia. The 2014 coup changed that, and now of course we recognize the post-coup policy as the only legitimate one. Quite convenient for us, but there's more to it than we like to pretend.

---

As US citizens, shouldn't that be a good thing that is convenient for us and works out?

---

Probably depends on if you are in a position to capitalize financially on the USA adding another province-vassal to the empire.

For instance out sourcing our manufacturing base made some Americans insanely wealthy…and impoverished millions more working class men and women.

Mixed bag in the end

---

Wait a minute. Nations going from Russian-based economic system to the EU/US/Japanese based economic system do much better and the quality of life goes up. So, how is the US "adding another province-vassal" bad for the province-vassal state? You are telling us that Latvia, Lithiuania, Estonia, Poland, Romania, and all the rest were better off under Russia's grip? Venezuela is a better place now??? North Korea is a better qualit of life than South Korea? Who are you trying to kid?

---

if we are to call the American-led liberal order an empire, it would be the first voluntary empire in the world which every single member begged to join, in which not a single member had to be invaded to join.

Red: The "empire" jargon is straight-up Russian agitprop.

---

1. Read up on how the Roman and British "empires" were actually built. Had you been transported back in time to ancient Rome the Romans would have denied they even had an empire...simply a large area of allied states, kingdoms, and cities who looked to Rome for trade and protection.

Thomas Madden does a great job of mapping this out and explaining how (outside of places like Gaul) the vast majority of places that ended up in the Roman sphere of influence or "empire" did so voluntarily and as equal partners and allies.

https://www.amazon.com/Empires-Trust-Built-America-Building/dp/0452295459
[Madden shows that the power of the ancient Roman republic and the U.S. was built on trust between allies, not the conquest of enemies. The far-reaching implications of this fact are essential reading for anyone who cares about the challenges we face now and in the years ahead.]

So its not the first time in history that empires have been forged by trade, alliance, and voluntary association. Far from it.

2. You seem to know a lot about Russian antiprop...far more than us regular guys. But the contention that the USA is now a global "empire" is pretty standard discourse here at home and has been since 1945. From Noam Chomsky liberals to Pat Buchanan paleo-cons it's a standard assessment. Some place that date of the accession to imperial power at different places within our history....Lincoln's victory over the States in 1865 (southern paleo-cons) or the USA's involvement in Vietnam (progressive RFK types) or the Spanish American war (Louis A. Perez leftists) but the contention that we are now a empire is simply not that controversial.

Liberal interventionist and neo-con types now come out and unabashedly defend the idea as a positive good for the world.

[Max Boot defends U.S. imperialism, writing, "U.S. imperialism has been the greatest force for good in the world during the past century. It has defeated communism and Nazism and has intervened against the Taliban and Serbian ethnic cleansing."]

[Schiller's formulation of the concept, cultural imperialism refers to the American Empire's "coercive and persuasive agencies, and their capacity to promote and universalize an American 'way of life' in other countries without any reciprocation of influence." According to Schiller, cultural imperialism "pressured, forced and bribed" societies to integrate with the U.S.'s expansive capitalist model but also incorporated them with attraction and persuasion by winning "the mutual consent, even solicitation of the indigenous rulers."

Newer research on cultural imperialism sheds light on how the US national security state partners with media corporations to spread US foreign policy and military-promoting media goods around the world. In Hearts and Mines: The US Empire's Culture Industry, Tanner Mirrlees builds upon the work of Herbert I. Schiller to argue that the US government and media corporations pursue different interests on the world stage (the former, national security, and the latter, profit), but structural alliances and the synergistic relationships between them support the co-production and global flow of Empire-extolling cultural and entertainment goods.]

3. Military power alone even within a network of trust and alliance between U.S. partners could be defined as empire or to make people feel better...an area of Imperium. The two ocean navy keeps the world sea lanes open and free of piracy of instance and our military bases in Europe keep the peace. "In 2015, David Vine's book Base Nation, found 800 U.S. military bases located outside of the U.S., including 174 bases in Germany, 113 in Japan, and 83 in South Korea. The total cost was estimated at $100 billion a year."

4. You simply have to determine how you feel about the Global Empire the the USA has built....good for the world or not. Good for the average America or not. But the idea that it does not exist would be the only thing that would be strange to argue.

[The Oxford dictionary defines empire as: 'Paramount influence, absolute sway, supreme command or control'; how suiting such terminology is to define the current disposition of the United States. Over the past century the U.S. has risen to be the undisputed world power, with its tentacles of influence sprawled across the globe, leaving almost no state untouched.]

https://www.e-ir.info/2009/05/28/the-united-states-global-empire/

---

Hooey. Out of context hooey at that.

here what your argument overlooks: Roman legions fought and defeated barbarian peoples along the totality of the Roman border. Did the Picts or Welsh or Britons or Irish or Gauls or Alemani or Catalonians or Basques or Berbers or Egyptians or Greeks or any of the Levanties or Arabs or Persians or Turks or Georgians or Armenians or (I could go on for a while)......reach out as sovereign equals for trade and alliance deals with Rome? No. Rome defeated them all, in combat. (well, about those Picts....) Sometimes the resistance was token (North African campaigns). Sometimes it was titanic (Gauls). Sometimes it was intermittent ebb & flow (Caucasus). Sometimes is was over in & done (Spain, etc...) Sometimes, it was brief (Persia). Sometimes it was constant (Belgians, Germans), Sometimes Rome even said "this ain't worth it" (Britannia) and withdrew. Ever heard of a Roman "Triumph? It's when a returning General/Caesar was allowed to parade capture booty/leaders into Rome. Read up on the Battle of Alesia. Read up on what happened to Vercengetorix. Then look at what happened to Gaul thereafter (alliance structures of local rulers).

Here's what your argument misunderstands: the alliances sorta were and were not alliances. But they almost always happened AFTER military conquest. What sorta made them alliances is that Rome understood there were not enough Romans to govern everything Rome could conquer. So they would establish an administration of local rule, often with great autonomy. King Herod is a great example. He could mostly rule as he wished, as long as he remained loyal to Rome, paid Rome taxes, sent levies for Roman wars, etc...... As long as he did that, he didn't have to worry about a Roman legion removing him from power. Which brings us to the part your argument ignores: That is not really an alliance. That is an imperial structure.

And here's what your argument gets wrong: We have nothing remotely approaching an imperial structure. Yes, we did invade and conquer Italy, Germany, and Japan in WWII......AFTER THEY ATTACKED US. But are they today truly Herod-esque puppets? Of course ont. if they withdrew from Nato or other alliance structures with the US, would we re-invade to re-impose new puppets? Not bloody likely. And what about all those other countries we didn't invade? France, Eastern Europe, Spain. Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Australia, Jordan, etc...... Are they merely allied with us out of fear of what WE will do to them?

Of course not. In almost every case, they are allied with us BECAUSE OF WHAT THEY FEAR OTHERS WILL DO TO THEM.

Really, really bad line of argument you've taken here, cherry-picking history to turn the USA into something it is not and never has been primarily because you don't like how much the whole program costs. IF you don't think it's all worth the nickle, fine. Reasonable position to take. But don't conjure it up into a dragon to overcompensate for a weak case that we get nothing for our foreign policy structures.

---

I agree with you. There is a huge difference between an Empire as in Roman times where those that were conquered had no say in whether they were in or out. And the US Foreign Policy. Earlier they asked about strategic partners leaving. Well, it just happened in the Phillipines. There is no more strategic location than Subic Bay. Yet, we left. We removed weapons from Europe at the host Nations request. The US might have influence, but that does not make it an Empire.

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[The United States has committed itself to expanding NATO to Russia's borders. NATO, of course, stands for "North Atlantic Treaty Organization." A nave onlooker might ask why countries like Bulgaria, Finland, and Poland would be included in such a treaty. The answer is pretty simple: NATO has nothing to do with the North Atlantic. It is an anti-Russian military alliance.

Russia knew (or, rather, knows) that Ukraine has been courting both the European Union and NATO. Kiev wants to unite itself politically, economically, and militarily to the West. That would mean the United States has a right to place more troops and artillery on Russia's border. Russia didn't like that, and so it lashed out.
But the question is why does the United States want to put troops and artillery on Russia's border? Why has it maintained and, indeed, expanded this anti-Russian alliance, even though its original objective (i.e., the destruction of the Soviet Union) has been accomplished?

Our leaders have been clear on that point. To quote Richard Moore, the current chief of MI6: "With the tragedy and destruction unfolding so distressingly in Ukraine, we should remember the values and hard-won freedoms that distinguish us from Putin, none more than LGBT+ rights."
This isn't Kremlin disinformation. These are the words coming from the horse's mouth. We hate Russia because they are mean to the gays.
Deacon Nicholas Kotar, the great novelist and translator, gave a wider view:

Quote:

---

What the Russian government is doing is setting a red line to the spread of NGO-style liberal democracy. And Ukraine, unfortunately, has been a buffer zone, and a kind of test-case, for the spread, not of a political system, but of a system of values, that is espoused by the elites only....The problem is that with all these colored revolutions, no matter how you look at it, the thing that comes in together with the money is an insistence, unfortunately, on the adoption of the Western liberal cultural milieu. It happened in Georgia, it happened in Ukraine, it happened everywhere.

---

Ultimately, this isn't about Russia. It's not even about Ukraine. It's about us. Western elites want us to believe that the triumph of "NGO-style liberal democracy" is inevitable everywhere. But it's not. Russia is living proof of that.]

---

By contrast, when NATO expanded into the former Warsaw Pact nations and the Baltics, no permanent bases with standing maneuver units were stationed there.

---

Again, this is not true. Poland hosts both the forward command of the Army V Corps, first announced in 2020, and the "semi-permanent" headquarters of the 3rd Armored Brigade Combat Team of the 4th Infantry Division, which has been there since 2017 (and also has a rotational presence in Estonia and Latvia).

---

and what you say is true, but misleading. A forward command post is not a combat unit. There are no permanent bases with combat units permanently stationed in the former Warsaw Pact countries, out of deference to Russian sensitivities. the F-16s on Combat Air Patrol over Romania are permanently stationed in Germany and Italy. Those aircraft were maintained and fueled from their home bases. Yes, they landed on a "Nato airbase" in Romania. But the fuel, the refueling tankers, cargo flights of spare parts, etc....took off every few hours from home base back in Italy and Germany. ....because we do not permanently station combat aircraft in Romania, out of deference to Russia. We do, however, maintain the infrastructure in fmr WP countries to quickly receive those aircraft if/when needed. But they "live" in Germany and Italy. (and those bases in Germany and Italy had to bring in aircraft (mostly F-35s and F-15s) from elsewhere in the DOD to fulfill the mission of those F-16's sent to Romania.)

So my statement is both correct and true. We have no permanent stationing of combat units in fmr WP.

Out of deference to Russia.

Who invaded Ukraine anyway.

So what did that deference buy us?

Nothing.

It demonstrated weakness.

Russia exploited it.

Need to station armored divisions and combat aircraft in fmr WP nations soon.

To avoid showing further weakness to Russia.

---

They say that like it is a bad thing. I think it is great that we are getting permanent bases in Poland. If Germany doesn't want us, Poland sure does... Same with the Baltics.

---

There is no evidence of that.

The Germans love the injection of cash that U.S. imperial bases provide....and love the free protection.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/02/removal-of-us-troops-from-germany-will-gravely-affect-local-communities

[Simply not OK': removal of US troops worries German communities.
Politicians say withdrawal of up to 12,000 soldiers will hurt local economy and makes little strategic sense]

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[The United States has committed itself to expanding NATO to Russia's borders. NATO, of course, stands for "North Atlantic Treaty Organization." A nave onlooker might ask why countries like Bulgaria, Finland, and Poland would be included in such a treaty. The answer is pretty simple: NATO has nothing to do with the North Atlantic. It is an anti-Russian military alliance.

Russia knew (or, rather, knows) that Ukraine has been courting both the European Union and NATO. Kiev wants to unite itself politically, economically, and militarily to the West. That would mean the United States has a right to place more troops and artillery on Russia's border. Russia didn't like that, and so it lashed out.
But the question is why does the United States want to put troops and artillery on Russia's border? Why has it maintained and, indeed, expanded this anti-Russian alliance, even though its original objective (i.e., the destruction of the Soviet Union) has been accomplished?

Our leaders have been clear on that point. To quote Richard Moore, the current chief of MI6: "With the tragedy and destruction unfolding so distressingly in Ukraine, we should remember the values and hard-won freedoms that distinguish us from Putin, none more than LGBT+ rights."
This isn't Kremlin disinformation. These are the words coming from the horse's mouth. We hate Russia because they are mean to the gays.
Deacon Nicholas Kotar, the great novelist and translator, gave a wider view:

Quote:

---

What the Russian government is doing is setting a red line to the spread of NGO-style liberal democracy. And Ukraine, unfortunately, has been a buffer zone, and a kind of test-case, for the spread, not of a political system, but of a system of values, that is espoused by the elites only....The problem is that with all these colored revolutions, no matter how you look at it, the thing that comes in together with the money is an insistence, unfortunately, on the adoption of the Western liberal cultural milieu. It happened in Georgia, it happened in Ukraine, it happened everywhere.

---

Ultimately, this isn't about Russia. It's not even about Ukraine. It's about us. Western elites want us to believe that the triumph of "NGO-style liberal democracy" is inevitable everywhere. But it's not. Russia is living proof of that.]

---

By contrast, when NATO expanded into the former Warsaw Pact nations and the Baltics, no permanent bases with standing maneuver units were stationed there.

---

Again, this is not true. Poland hosts both the forward command of the Army V Corps, first announced in 2020, and the "semi-permanent" headquarters of the 3rd Armored Brigade Combat Team of the 4th Infantry Division, which has been there since 2017 (and also has a rotational presence in Estonia and Latvia).

---

and what you say is true, but misleading. A forward command post is not a combat unit. There are no permanent bases with combat units permanently stationed in the former Warsaw Pact countries, out of deference to Russian sensitivities. the F-16s on Combat Air Patrol over Romania are permanently stationed in Germany and Italy. Those aircraft were maintained and fueled from their home bases. Yes, they landed on a "Nato airbase" in Romania. But the fuel, the refueling tankers, cargo flights of spare parts, etc....took off every few hours from home base back in Italy and Germany. ....because we do not permanently station combat aircraft in Romania, out of deference to Russia. We do, however, maintain the infrastructure in fmr WP countries to quickly receive those aircraft if/when needed. But they "live" in Germany and Italy. (and those bases in Germany and Italy had to bring in aircraft (mostly F-35s and F-15s) from elsewhere in the DOD to fulfill the mission of those F-16's sent to Romania.)

So my statement is both correct and true. We have no permanent stationing of combat units in fmr WP.

Out of deference to Russia.

Who invaded Ukraine anyway.

So what did that deference buy us?

Nothing.

It demonstrated weakness.

Russia exploited it.

Need to station armored divisions and combat aircraft in fmr WP nations soon.

To avoid showing further weakness to Russia.

---

They say that like it is a bad thing. I think it is great that we are getting permanent bases in Poland. If Germany doesn't want us, Poland sure does... Same with the Baltics.

---

There is no evidence of that.

The Germans love the injection of cash that U.S. imperial bases provide....and love the free protection.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/02/removal-of-us-troops-from-germany-will-gravely-affect-local-communities

[Simply not OK': removal of US troops worries German communities.
Politicians say withdrawal of up to 12,000 soldiers will hurt local economy and makes little strategic sense]

---

Poll: Germans Want US Troops and Nuclear Weapons to Leave Country (businessinsider.com)


There are more. But, amazing how the attitude changed when the Tanks rolled into Ukraine. US aint' so bad...

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[The United States has committed itself to expanding NATO to Russia's borders. NATO, of course, stands for "North Atlantic Treaty Organization." A nave onlooker might ask why countries like Bulgaria, Finland, and Poland would be included in such a treaty. The answer is pretty simple: NATO has nothing to do with the North Atlantic. It is an anti-Russian military alliance.

Russia knew (or, rather, knows) that Ukraine has been courting both the European Union and NATO. Kiev wants to unite itself politically, economically, and militarily to the West. That would mean the United States has a right to place more troops and artillery on Russia's border. Russia didn't like that, and so it lashed out.
But the question is why does the United States want to put troops and artillery on Russia's border? Why has it maintained and, indeed, expanded this anti-Russian alliance, even though its original objective (i.e., the destruction of the Soviet Union) has been accomplished?

Our leaders have been clear on that point. To quote Richard Moore, the current chief of MI6: "With the tragedy and destruction unfolding so distressingly in Ukraine, we should remember the values and hard-won freedoms that distinguish us from Putin, none more than LGBT+ rights."
This isn't Kremlin disinformation. These are the words coming from the horse's mouth. We hate Russia because they are mean to the gays.
Deacon Nicholas Kotar, the great novelist and translator, gave a wider view:

Quote:

---

What the Russian government is doing is setting a red line to the spread of NGO-style liberal democracy. And Ukraine, unfortunately, has been a buffer zone, and a kind of test-case, for the spread, not of a political system, but of a system of values, that is espoused by the elites only....The problem is that with all these colored revolutions, no matter how you look at it, the thing that comes in together with the money is an insistence, unfortunately, on the adoption of the Western liberal cultural milieu. It happened in Georgia, it happened in Ukraine, it happened everywhere.

---

Ultimately, this isn't about Russia. It's not even about Ukraine. It's about us. Western elites want us to believe that the triumph of "NGO-style liberal democracy" is inevitable everywhere. But it's not. Russia is living proof of that.]

---

By contrast, when NATO expanded into the former Warsaw Pact nations and the Baltics, no permanent bases with standing maneuver units were stationed there.

---

Again, this is not true. Poland hosts both the forward command of the Army V Corps, first announced in 2020, and the "semi-permanent" headquarters of the 3rd Armored Brigade Combat Team of the 4th Infantry Division, which has been there since 2017 (and also has a rotational presence in Estonia and Latvia).

---

and what you say is true, but misleading. A forward command post is not a combat unit. There are no permanent bases with combat units permanently stationed in the former Warsaw Pact countries, out of deference to Russian sensitivities. the F-16s on Combat Air Patrol over Romania are permanently stationed in Germany and Italy. Those aircraft were maintained and fueled from their home bases. Yes, they landed on a "Nato airbase" in Romania. But the fuel, the refueling tankers, cargo flights of spare parts, etc....took off every few hours from home base back in Italy and Germany. ....because we do not permanently station combat aircraft in Romania, out of deference to Russia. We do, however, maintain the infrastructure in fmr WP countries to quickly receive those aircraft if/when needed. But they "live" in Germany and Italy. (and those bases in Germany and Italy had to bring in aircraft (mostly F-35s and F-15s) from elsewhere in the DOD to fulfill the mission of those F-16's sent to Romania.)

So my statement is both correct and true. We have no permanent stationing of combat units in fmr WP.

Out of deference to Russia.

Who invaded Ukraine anyway.

So what did that deference buy us?

Nothing.

It demonstrated weakness.

Russia exploited it.

Need to station armored divisions and combat aircraft in fmr WP nations soon.

To avoid showing further weakness to Russia.

---

They say that like it is a bad thing. I think it is great that we are getting permanent bases in Poland. If Germany doesn't want us, Poland sure does... Same with the Baltics.

---

There is no evidence of that.

The Germans love the injection of cash that U.S. imperial bases provide....and love the free protection.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/02/removal-of-us-troops-from-germany-will-gravely-affect-local-communities

[Simply not OK': removal of US troops worries German communities.
Politicians say withdrawal of up to 12,000 soldiers will hurt local economy and makes little strategic sense]

---

Poll: Germans Want US Troops and Nuclear Weapons to Leave Country (businessinsider.com)


There are more. But, amazing how the attitude changed when the Tanks rolled into Ukraine. US aint' so bad...

---

They also want to live without using coal power but also without building any more nuclear reactors.

I doubt the German leadership would ever actual try and remove US troops. And as you said if they were foolish enough to do that then Poland would be more than happy to have the huge injection of cash.

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[The United States has committed itself to expanding NATO to Russia's borders. NATO, of course, stands for "North Atlantic Treaty Organization." A nave onlooker might ask why countries like Bulgaria, Finland, and Poland would be included in such a treaty. The answer is pretty simple: NATO has nothing to do with the North Atlantic. It is an anti-Russian military alliance.

Russia knew (or, rather, knows) that Ukraine has been courting both the European Union and NATO. Kiev wants to unite itself politically, economically, and militarily to the West. That would mean the United States has a right to place more troops and artillery on Russia's border. Russia didn't like that, and so it lashed out.
But the question is why does the United States want to put troops and artillery on Russia's border? Why has it maintained and, indeed, expanded this anti-Russian alliance, even though its original objective (i.e., the destruction of the Soviet Union) has been accomplished?

Our leaders have been clear on that point. To quote Richard Moore, the current chief of MI6: "With the tragedy and destruction unfolding so distressingly in Ukraine, we should remember the values and hard-won freedoms that distinguish us from Putin, none more than LGBT+ rights."
This isn't Kremlin disinformation. These are the words coming from the horse's mouth. We hate Russia because they are mean to the gays.
Deacon Nicholas Kotar, the great novelist and translator, gave a wider view:

Quote:

---

What the Russian government is doing is setting a red line to the spread of NGO-style liberal democracy. And Ukraine, unfortunately, has been a buffer zone, and a kind of test-case, for the spread, not of a political system, but of a system of values, that is espoused by the elites only....The problem is that with all these colored revolutions, no matter how you look at it, the thing that comes in together with the money is an insistence, unfortunately, on the adoption of the Western liberal cultural milieu. It happened in Georgia, it happened in Ukraine, it happened everywhere.

---

Ultimately, this isn't about Russia. It's not even about Ukraine. It's about us. Western elites want us to believe that the triumph of "NGO-style liberal democracy" is inevitable everywhere. But it's not. Russia is living proof of that.]

---

By contrast, when NATO expanded into the former Warsaw Pact nations and the Baltics, no permanent bases with standing maneuver units were stationed there.

---

Again, this is not true. Poland hosts both the forward command of the Army V Corps, first announced in 2020, and the "semi-permanent" headquarters of the 3rd Armored Brigade Combat Team of the 4th Infantry Division, which has been there since 2017 (and also has a rotational presence in Estonia and Latvia).

---

and what you say is true, but misleading. A forward command post is not a combat unit. There are no permanent bases with combat units permanently stationed in the former Warsaw Pact countries, out of deference to Russian sensitivities. the F-16s on Combat Air Patrol over Romania are permanently stationed in Germany and Italy. Those aircraft were maintained and fueled from their home bases. Yes, they landed on a "Nato airbase" in Romania. But the fuel, the refueling tankers, cargo flights of spare parts, etc....took off every few hours from home base back in Italy and Germany. ....because we do not permanently station combat aircraft in Romania, out of deference to Russia. We do, however, maintain the infrastructure in fmr WP countries to quickly receive those aircraft if/when needed. But they "live" in Germany and Italy. (and those bases in Germany and Italy had to bring in aircraft (mostly F-35s and F-15s) from elsewhere in the DOD to fulfill the mission of those F-16's sent to Romania.)

So my statement is both correct and true. We have no permanent stationing of combat units in fmr WP.

Out of deference to Russia.

Who invaded Ukraine anyway.

So what did that deference buy us?

Nothing.

It demonstrated weakness.

Russia exploited it.

Need to station armored divisions and combat aircraft in fmr WP nations soon.

To avoid showing further weakness to Russia.

---

They say that like it is a bad thing. I think it is great that we are getting permanent bases in Poland. If Germany doesn't want us, Poland sure does... Same with the Baltics.

---

There is no evidence of that.

The Germans love the injection of cash that U.S. imperial bases provide....and love the free protection.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/02/removal-of-us-troops-from-germany-will-gravely-affect-local-communities

[Simply not OK': removal of US troops worries German communities.
Politicians say withdrawal of up to 12,000 soldiers will hurt local economy and makes little strategic sense]

---

Poll: Germans Want US Troops and Nuclear Weapons to Leave Country (businessinsider.com)


There are more. But, amazing how the attitude changed when the Tanks rolled into Ukraine. US aint' so bad...

---

They also want to live without using coal power but also without building any more nuclear reactors.

I doubt the German leadership would ever actual try and remove US troops. And as you said if they were foolish enough to do that then Poland would be more than happy to have the huge injection of cash.

---

Not only cash, presence.

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[The United States has committed itself to expanding NATO to Russia's borders. NATO, of course, stands for "North Atlantic Treaty Organization." A nave onlooker might ask why countries like Bulgaria, Finland, and Poland would be included in such a treaty. The answer is pretty simple: NATO has nothing to do with the North Atlantic. It is an anti-Russian military alliance.

Russia knew (or, rather, knows) that Ukraine has been courting both the European Union and NATO. Kiev wants to unite itself politically, economically, and militarily to the West. That would mean the United States has a right to place more troops and artillery on Russia's border. Russia didn't like that, and so it lashed out.
But the question is why does the United States want to put troops and artillery on Russia's border? Why has it maintained and, indeed, expanded this anti-Russian alliance, even though its original objective (i.e., the destruction of the Soviet Union) has been accomplished?

Our leaders have been clear on that point. To quote Richard Moore, the current chief of MI6: "With the tragedy and destruction unfolding so distressingly in Ukraine, we should remember the values and hard-won freedoms that distinguish us from Putin, none more than LGBT+ rights."
This isn't Kremlin disinformation. These are the words coming from the horse's mouth. We hate Russia because they are mean to the gays.
Deacon Nicholas Kotar, the great novelist and translator, gave a wider view:

Quote:

---

What the Russian government is doing is setting a red line to the spread of NGO-style liberal democracy. And Ukraine, unfortunately, has been a buffer zone, and a kind of test-case, for the spread, not of a political system, but of a system of values, that is espoused by the elites only....The problem is that with all these colored revolutions, no matter how you look at it, the thing that comes in together with the money is an insistence, unfortunately, on the adoption of the Western liberal cultural milieu. It happened in Georgia, it happened in Ukraine, it happened everywhere.

---

Ultimately, this isn't about Russia. It's not even about Ukraine. It's about us. Western elites want us to believe that the triumph of "NGO-style liberal democracy" is inevitable everywhere. But it's not. Russia is living proof of that.]

---

By contrast, when NATO expanded into the former Warsaw Pact nations and the Baltics, no permanent bases with standing maneuver units were stationed there.

---

Again, this is not true. Poland hosts both the forward command of the Army V Corps, first announced in 2020, and the "semi-permanent" headquarters of the 3rd Armored Brigade Combat Team of the 4th Infantry Division, which has been there since 2017 (and also has a rotational presence in Estonia and Latvia).

---

and what you say is true, but misleading. A forward command post is not a combat unit. There are no permanent bases with combat units permanently stationed in the former Warsaw Pact countries, out of deference to Russian sensitivities. the F-16s on Combat Air Patrol over Romania are permanently stationed in Germany and Italy. Those aircraft were maintained and fueled from their home bases. Yes, they landed on a "Nato airbase" in Romania. But the fuel, the refueling tankers, cargo flights of spare parts, etc....took off every few hours from home base back in Italy and Germany. ....because we do not permanently station combat aircraft in Romania, out of deference to Russia. We do, however, maintain the infrastructure in fmr WP countries to quickly receive those aircraft if/when needed. But they "live" in Germany and Italy. (and those bases in Germany and Italy had to bring in aircraft (mostly F-35s and F-15s) from elsewhere in the DOD to fulfill the mission of those F-16's sent to Romania.)

So my statement is both correct and true. We have no permanent stationing of combat units in fmr WP.

Out of deference to Russia.

Who invaded Ukraine anyway.

So what did that deference buy us?

Nothing.

It demonstrated weakness.

Russia exploited it.

Need to station armored divisions and combat aircraft in fmr WP nations soon.

To avoid showing further weakness to Russia.

---

They say that like it is a bad thing. I think it is great that we are getting permanent bases in Poland. If Germany doesn't want us, Poland sure does... Same with the Baltics.

---

There is no evidence of that.

The Germans love the injection of cash that U.S. imperial bases provide....and love the free protection.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/02/removal-of-us-troops-from-germany-will-gravely-affect-local-communities

[Simply not OK': removal of US troops worries German communities.
Politicians say withdrawal of up to 12,000 soldiers will hurt local economy and makes little strategic sense]

---

Poll: Germans Want US Troops and Nuclear Weapons to Leave Country (businessinsider.com)


There are more. But, amazing how the attitude changed when the Tanks rolled into Ukraine. US aint' so bad...

---

They also want to live without using coal power but also without building any more nuclear reactors.

I doubt the German leadership would ever actual try and remove US troops. And as you said if they were foolish enough to do that then Poland would be more than happy to have the huge injection of cash.

---

Not only cash, presence.

---

eh....the cash would be 90% of the attraction

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[The United States has committed itself to expanding NATO to Russia's borders. NATO, of course, stands for "North Atlantic Treaty Organization." A nave onlooker might ask why countries like Bulgaria, Finland, and Poland would be included in such a treaty. The answer is pretty simple: NATO has nothing to do with the North Atlantic. It is an anti-Russian military alliance.

Russia knew (or, rather, knows) that Ukraine has been courting both the European Union and NATO. Kiev wants to unite itself politically, economically, and militarily to the West. That would mean the United States has a right to place more troops and artillery on Russia's border. Russia didn't like that, and so it lashed out.
But the question is why does the United States want to put troops and artillery on Russia's border? Why has it maintained and, indeed, expanded this anti-Russian alliance, even though its original objective (i.e., the destruction of the Soviet Union) has been accomplished?

Our leaders have been clear on that point. To quote Richard Moore, the current chief of MI6: "With the tragedy and destruction unfolding so distressingly in Ukraine, we should remember the values and hard-won freedoms that distinguish us from Putin, none more than LGBT+ rights."
This isn't Kremlin disinformation. These are the words coming from the horse's mouth. We hate Russia because they are mean to the gays.
Deacon Nicholas Kotar, the great novelist and translator, gave a wider view:

Quote:

---

What the Russian government is doing is setting a red line to the spread of NGO-style liberal democracy. And Ukraine, unfortunately, has been a buffer zone, and a kind of test-case, for the spread, not of a political system, but of a system of values, that is espoused by the elites only....The problem is that with all these colored revolutions, no matter how you look at it, the thing that comes in together with the money is an insistence, unfortunately, on the adoption of the Western liberal cultural milieu. It happened in Georgia, it happened in Ukraine, it happened everywhere.

---

Ultimately, this isn't about Russia. It's not even about Ukraine. It's about us. Western elites want us to believe that the triumph of "NGO-style liberal democracy" is inevitable everywhere. But it's not. Russia is living proof of that.]

---

By contrast, when NATO expanded into the former Warsaw Pact nations and the Baltics, no permanent bases with standing maneuver units were stationed there.

---

Again, this is not true. Poland hosts both the forward command of the Army V Corps, first announced in 2020, and the "semi-permanent" headquarters of the 3rd Armored Brigade Combat Team of the 4th Infantry Division, which has been there since 2017 (and also has a rotational presence in Estonia and Latvia).

---

and what you say is true, but misleading. A forward command post is not a combat unit. There are no permanent bases with combat units permanently stationed in the former Warsaw Pact countries, out of deference to Russian sensitivities. the F-16s on Combat Air Patrol over Romania are permanently stationed in Germany and Italy. Those aircraft were maintained and fueled from their home bases. Yes, they landed on a "Nato airbase" in Romania. But the fuel, the refueling tankers, cargo flights of spare parts, etc....took off every few hours from home base back in Italy and Germany. ....because we do not permanently station combat aircraft in Romania, out of deference to Russia. We do, however, maintain the infrastructure in fmr WP countries to quickly receive those aircraft if/when needed. But they "live" in Germany and Italy. (and those bases in Germany and Italy had to bring in aircraft (mostly F-35s and F-15s) from elsewhere in the DOD to fulfill the mission of those F-16's sent to Romania.)

So my statement is both correct and true. We have no permanent stationing of combat units in fmr WP.

Out of deference to Russia.

Who invaded Ukraine anyway.

So what did that deference buy us?

Nothing.

It demonstrated weakness.

Russia exploited it.

Need to station armored divisions and combat aircraft in fmr WP nations soon.

To avoid showing further weakness to Russia.

---

They say that like it is a bad thing. I think it is great that we are getting permanent bases in Poland. If Germany doesn't want us, Poland sure does... Same with the Baltics.

---

There is no evidence of that.

The Germans love the injection of cash that U.S. imperial bases provide....and love the free protection.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/02/removal-of-us-troops-from-germany-will-gravely-affect-local-communities

[Simply not OK': removal of US troops worries German communities.
Politicians say withdrawal of up to 12,000 soldiers will hurt local economy and makes little strategic sense]

---

Poll: Germans Want US Troops and Nuclear Weapons to Leave Country (businessinsider.com)


There are more. But, amazing how the attitude changed when the Tanks rolled into Ukraine. US aint' so bad...

---

They also want to live without using coal power but also without building any more nuclear reactors.

I doubt the German leadership would ever actual try and remove US troops. And as you said if they were foolish enough to do that then Poland would be more than happy to have the huge injection of cash.

---

Not only cash, presence.

---

eh....the cash would be 90% of the attraction

---

2 years ago, maybe since Ukraine... Deterrence plays a big part, especially the newer NATO members on the frontier with Russia.I know don't tell me, that is not the real reason. Right? Is anything EVER as it seems or what the data shows? According to this site, no. There is always an "inside" reason that only the truly educated or well connected know!


Permanent deterrence: Enhancements to the US military presence in North Central Europe - Atlantic Council

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[The United States has committed itself to expanding NATO to Russia's borders. NATO, of course, stands for "North Atlantic Treaty Organization." A nave onlooker might ask why countries like Bulgaria, Finland, and Poland would be included in such a treaty. The answer is pretty simple: NATO has nothing to do with the North Atlantic. It is an anti-Russian military alliance.

Russia knew (or, rather, knows) that Ukraine has been courting both the European Union and NATO. Kiev wants to unite itself politically, economically, and militarily to the West. That would mean the United States has a right to place more troops and artillery on Russia's border. Russia didn't like that, and so it lashed out.
But the question is why does the United States want to put troops and artillery on Russia's border? Why has it maintained and, indeed, expanded this anti-Russian alliance, even though its original objective (i.e., the destruction of the Soviet Union) has been accomplished?

Our leaders have been clear on that point. To quote Richard Moore, the current chief of MI6: "With the tragedy and destruction unfolding so distressingly in Ukraine, we should remember the values and hard-won freedoms that distinguish us from Putin, none more than LGBT+ rights."
This isn't Kremlin disinformation. These are the words coming from the horse's mouth. We hate Russia because they are mean to the gays.
Deacon Nicholas Kotar, the great novelist and translator, gave a wider view:

Quote:

---

What the Russian government is doing is setting a red line to the spread of NGO-style liberal democracy. And Ukraine, unfortunately, has been a buffer zone, and a kind of test-case, for the spread, not of a political system, but of a system of values, that is espoused by the elites only....The problem is that with all these colored revolutions, no matter how you look at it, the thing that comes in together with the money is an insistence, unfortunately, on the adoption of the Western liberal cultural milieu. It happened in Georgia, it happened in Ukraine, it happened everywhere.

---

Ultimately, this isn't about Russia. It's not even about Ukraine. It's about us. Western elites want us to believe that the triumph of "NGO-style liberal democracy" is inevitable everywhere. But it's not. Russia is living proof of that.]

---

By contrast, when NATO expanded into the former Warsaw Pact nations and the Baltics, no permanent bases with standing maneuver units were stationed there.

---

Again, this is not true. Poland hosts both the forward command of the Army V Corps, first announced in 2020, and the "semi-permanent" headquarters of the 3rd Armored Brigade Combat Team of the 4th Infantry Division, which has been there since 2017 (and also has a rotational presence in Estonia and Latvia).

---

and what you say is true, but misleading. A forward command post is not a combat unit. There are no permanent bases with combat units permanently stationed in the former Warsaw Pact countries, out of deference to Russian sensitivities. the F-16s on Combat Air Patrol over Romania are permanently stationed in Germany and Italy. Those aircraft were maintained and fueled from their home bases. Yes, they landed on a "Nato airbase" in Romania. But the fuel, the refueling tankers, cargo flights of spare parts, etc....took off every few hours from home base back in Italy and Germany. ....because we do not permanently station combat aircraft in Romania, out of deference to Russia. We do, however, maintain the infrastructure in fmr WP countries to quickly receive those aircraft if/when needed. But they "live" in Germany and Italy. (and those bases in Germany and Italy had to bring in aircraft (mostly F-35s and F-15s) from elsewhere in the DOD to fulfill the mission of those F-16's sent to Romania.)

So my statement is both correct and true. We have no permanent stationing of combat units in fmr WP.

Out of deference to Russia.

Who invaded Ukraine anyway.

So what did that deference buy us?

Nothing.

It demonstrated weakness.

Russia exploited it.

Need to station armored divisions and combat aircraft in fmr WP nations soon.

To avoid showing further weakness to Russia.

---

They say that like it is a bad thing. I think it is great that we are getting permanent bases in Poland. If Germany doesn't want us, Poland sure does... Same with the Baltics.

---

There is no evidence of that.

The Germans love the injection of cash that U.S. imperial bases provide....and love the free protection.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/02/removal-of-us-troops-from-germany-will-gravely-affect-local-communities

[Simply not OK': removal of US troops worries German communities.
Politicians say withdrawal of up to 12,000 soldiers will hurt local economy and makes little strategic sense]

---

Poll: Germans Want US Troops and Nuclear Weapons to Leave Country (businessinsider.com)


There are more. But, amazing how the attitude changed when the Tanks rolled into Ukraine. US aint' so bad...

---

They also want to live without using coal power but also without building any more nuclear reactors.

I doubt the German leadership would ever actual try and remove US troops. And as you said if they were foolish enough to do that then Poland would be more than happy to have the huge injection of cash.

---

Not only cash, presence.

---

eh....the cash would be 90% of the attraction

---

2 years ago, maybe since Ukraine... Deterrence plays a big part, especially the newer NATO members on the frontier with Russia.I know don't tell me, that is not the real reason. Right? Is anything EVER as it seems or what the data shows? According to this site, no. There is always an "inside" reason that only the truly educated or well connected know!


Permanent deterrence: Enhancements to the US military presence in North Central Europe - Atlantic Council

---

Are we back to the idea that Russia is gonna attempt to roll their tanks into Warsaw again?

You and whiterock have to make up your minds. Is Russia this massively powerful military force that is about to expand deep into Central Europe....or is it a corrupt demographically declining nation that can not even force its will on a deeply corrupt and poor Ukraine?

It can't be both

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[The United States has committed itself to expanding NATO to Russia's borders. NATO, of course, stands for "North Atlantic Treaty Organization." A nave onlooker might ask why countries like Bulgaria, Finland, and Poland would be included in such a treaty. The answer is pretty simple: NATO has nothing to do with the North Atlantic. It is an anti-Russian military alliance.

Russia knew (or, rather, knows) that Ukraine has been courting both the European Union and NATO. Kiev wants to unite itself politically, economically, and militarily to the West. That would mean the United States has a right to place more troops and artillery on Russia's border. Russia didn't like that, and so it lashed out.
But the question is why does the United States want to put troops and artillery on Russia's border? Why has it maintained and, indeed, expanded this anti-Russian alliance, even though its original objective (i.e., the destruction of the Soviet Union) has been accomplished?

Our leaders have been clear on that point. To quote Richard Moore, the current chief of MI6: "With the tragedy and destruction unfolding so distressingly in Ukraine, we should remember the values and hard-won freedoms that distinguish us from Putin, none more than LGBT+ rights."
This isn't Kremlin disinformation. These are the words coming from the horse's mouth. We hate Russia because they are mean to the gays.
Deacon Nicholas Kotar, the great novelist and translator, gave a wider view:

Quote:

---

What the Russian government is doing is setting a red line to the spread of NGO-style liberal democracy. And Ukraine, unfortunately, has been a buffer zone, and a kind of test-case, for the spread, not of a political system, but of a system of values, that is espoused by the elites only....The problem is that with all these colored revolutions, no matter how you look at it, the thing that comes in together with the money is an insistence, unfortunately, on the adoption of the Western liberal cultural milieu. It happened in Georgia, it happened in Ukraine, it happened everywhere.

---

Ultimately, this isn't about Russia. It's not even about Ukraine. It's about us. Western elites want us to believe that the triumph of "NGO-style liberal democracy" is inevitable everywhere. But it's not. Russia is living proof of that.]

---

By contrast, when NATO expanded into the former Warsaw Pact nations and the Baltics, no permanent bases with standing maneuver units were stationed there.

---

Again, this is not true. Poland hosts both the forward command of the Army V Corps, first announced in 2020, and the "semi-permanent" headquarters of the 3rd Armored Brigade Combat Team of the 4th Infantry Division, which has been there since 2017 (and also has a rotational presence in Estonia and Latvia).

---

and what you say is true, but misleading. A forward command post is not a combat unit. There are no permanent bases with combat units permanently stationed in the former Warsaw Pact countries, out of deference to Russian sensitivities. the F-16s on Combat Air Patrol over Romania are permanently stationed in Germany and Italy. Those aircraft were maintained and fueled from their home bases. Yes, they landed on a "Nato airbase" in Romania. But the fuel, the refueling tankers, cargo flights of spare parts, etc....took off every few hours from home base back in Italy and Germany. ....because we do not permanently station combat aircraft in Romania, out of deference to Russia. We do, however, maintain the infrastructure in fmr WP countries to quickly receive those aircraft if/when needed. But they "live" in Germany and Italy. (and those bases in Germany and Italy had to bring in aircraft (mostly F-35s and F-15s) from elsewhere in the DOD to fulfill the mission of those F-16's sent to Romania.)

So my statement is both correct and true. We have no permanent stationing of combat units in fmr WP.

Out of deference to Russia.

Who invaded Ukraine anyway.

So what did that deference buy us?

Nothing.

It demonstrated weakness.

Russia exploited it.

Need to station armored divisions and combat aircraft in fmr WP nations soon.

To avoid showing further weakness to Russia.

---

They say that like it is a bad thing. I think it is great that we are getting permanent bases in Poland. If Germany doesn't want us, Poland sure does... Same with the Baltics.

---

There is no evidence of that.

The Germans love the injection of cash that U.S. imperial bases provide....and love the free protection.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/02/removal-of-us-troops-from-germany-will-gravely-affect-local-communities

[Simply not OK': removal of US troops worries German communities.
Politicians say withdrawal of up to 12,000 soldiers will hurt local economy and makes little strategic sense]

---

Poll: Germans Want US Troops and Nuclear Weapons to Leave Country (businessinsider.com)


There are more. But, amazing how the attitude changed when the Tanks rolled into Ukraine. US aint' so bad...

---

They also want to live without using coal power but also without building any more nuclear reactors.

I doubt the German leadership would ever actual try and remove US troops. And as you said if they were foolish enough to do that then Poland would be more than happy to have the huge injection of cash.

---

Not only cash, presence.

---

eh....the cash would be 90% of the attraction

---

2 years ago, maybe since Ukraine... Deterrence plays a big part, especially the newer NATO members on the frontier with Russia.I know don't tell me, that is not the real reason. Right? Is anything EVER as it seems or what the data shows? According to this site, no. There is always an "inside" reason that only the truly educated or well connected know!


Permanent deterrence: Enhancements to the US military presence in North Central Europe - Atlantic Council

---

Are we back to the idea that Russia is gonna attempt to roll their tanks into Warsaw again?

You and whiterock have to make up your minds. Is Russia this massively powerful military force that is about to expand deep into Central Europe....or is it a corrupt demographically declining nation that can not even force its will on a deeply corrupt and poor Ukraine?

It can't be bot

---

You know there is a reason Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland and now Finland are all joining NATO, basically anyone that borders Russia wants to join NATO! Russia.

There are so many Nations looking to join NATO that there is a multi-year process to get in. Yet, NATO and the US are bad? You don't see an inconsistency there, huh?

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[The United States has committed itself to expanding NATO to Russia's borders. NATO, of course, stands for "North Atlantic Treaty Organization." A nave onlooker might ask why countries like Bulgaria, Finland, and Poland would be included in such a treaty. The answer is pretty simple: NATO has nothing to do with the North Atlantic. It is an anti-Russian military alliance.

Russia knew (or, rather, knows) that Ukraine has been courting both the European Union and NATO. Kiev wants to unite itself politically, economically, and militarily to the West. That would mean the United States has a right to place more troops and artillery on Russia's border. Russia didn't like that, and so it lashed out.
But the question is why does the United States want to put troops and artillery on Russia's border? Why has it maintained and, indeed, expanded this anti-Russian alliance, even though its original objective (i.e., the destruction of the Soviet Union) has been accomplished?

Our leaders have been clear on that point. To quote Richard Moore, the current chief of MI6: "With the tragedy and destruction unfolding so distressingly in Ukraine, we should remember the values and hard-won freedoms that distinguish us from Putin, none more than LGBT+ rights."
This isn't Kremlin disinformation. These are the words coming from the horse's mouth. We hate Russia because they are mean to the gays.
Deacon Nicholas Kotar, the great novelist and translator, gave a wider view:

Quote:

---

What the Russian government is doing is setting a red line to the spread of NGO-style liberal democracy. And Ukraine, unfortunately, has been a buffer zone, and a kind of test-case, for the spread, not of a political system, but of a system of values, that is espoused by the elites only....The problem is that with all these colored revolutions, no matter how you look at it, the thing that comes in together with the money is an insistence, unfortunately, on the adoption of the Western liberal cultural milieu. It happened in Georgia, it happened in Ukraine, it happened everywhere.

---

Ultimately, this isn't about Russia. It's not even about Ukraine. It's about us. Western elites want us to believe that the triumph of "NGO-style liberal democracy" is inevitable everywhere. But it's not. Russia is living proof of that.]

---

By contrast, when NATO expanded into the former Warsaw Pact nations and the Baltics, no permanent bases with standing maneuver units were stationed there.

---

Again, this is not true. Poland hosts both the forward command of the Army V Corps, first announced in 2020, and the "semi-permanent" headquarters of the 3rd Armored Brigade Combat Team of the 4th Infantry Division, which has been there since 2017 (and also has a rotational presence in Estonia and Latvia).

---

and what you say is true, but misleading. A forward command post is not a combat unit. There are no permanent bases with combat units permanently stationed in the former Warsaw Pact countries, out of deference to Russian sensitivities. the F-16s on Combat Air Patrol over Romania are permanently stationed in Germany and Italy. Those aircraft were maintained and fueled from their home bases. Yes, they landed on a "Nato airbase" in Romania. But the fuel, the refueling tankers, cargo flights of spare parts, etc....took off every few hours from home base back in Italy and Germany. ....because we do not permanently station combat aircraft in Romania, out of deference to Russia. We do, however, maintain the infrastructure in fmr WP countries to quickly receive those aircraft if/when needed. But they "live" in Germany and Italy. (and those bases in Germany and Italy had to bring in aircraft (mostly F-35s and F-15s) from elsewhere in the DOD to fulfill the mission of those F-16's sent to Romania.)

So my statement is both correct and true. We have no permanent stationing of combat units in fmr WP.

Out of deference to Russia.

Who invaded Ukraine anyway.

So what did that deference buy us?

Nothing.

It demonstrated weakness.

Russia exploited it.

Need to station armored divisions and combat aircraft in fmr WP nations soon.

To avoid showing further weakness to Russia.

---

They say that like it is a bad thing. I think it is great that we are getting permanent bases in Poland. If Germany doesn't want us, Poland sure does... Same with the Baltics.

---

There is no evidence of that.

The Germans love the injection of cash that U.S. imperial bases provide....and love the free protection.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/02/removal-of-us-troops-from-germany-will-gravely-affect-local-communities

[Simply not OK': removal of US troops worries German communities.
Politicians say withdrawal of up to 12,000 soldiers will hurt local economy and makes little strategic sense]

---

Poll: Germans Want US Troops and Nuclear Weapons to Leave Country (businessinsider.com)


There are more. But, amazing how the attitude changed when the Tanks rolled into Ukraine. US aint' so bad...

---

They also want to live without using coal power but also without building any more nuclear reactors.

I doubt the German leadership would ever actual try and remove US troops. And as you said if they were foolish enough to do that then Poland would be more than happy to have the huge injection of cash.

---

Not only cash, presence.

---

eh....the cash would be 90% of the attraction

---

2 years ago, maybe since Ukraine... Deterrence plays a big part, especially the newer NATO members on the frontier with Russia.I know don't tell me, that is not the real reason. Right? Is anything EVER as it seems or what the data shows? According to this site, no. There is always an "inside" reason that only the truly educated or well connected know!


Permanent deterrence: Enhancements to the US military presence in North Central Europe - Atlantic Council

---

Are we back to the idea that Russia is gonna attempt to roll their tanks into Warsaw again?

You and whiterock have to make up your minds. Is Russia this massively powerful military force that is about to expand deep into Central Europe....or is it a corrupt demographically declining nation that can not even force its will on a deeply corrupt and poor Ukraine?

It can't be bot

---

You know there is a reason Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland and now Finland are all joining NATO, basically anyone that borders Russia wants to join NATO! Russia.

There are so many Nations looking to join NATO that there is a multi-year process to get in. Yet, NATO and the US are bad? You don't see an inconsistency there, huh?

---

It does not bode well for your argument that you make to literally make up statements and attribute them to me.

I never said NATO and the USA are bad.

What people have questioned if is pushing NATO up to the very borders of Russia is in the best interest of average Americans and Europe in general.

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[The United States has committed itself to expanding NATO to Russia's borders. NATO, of course, stands for "North Atlantic Treaty Organization." A nave onlooker might ask why countries like Bulgaria, Finland, and Poland would be included in such a treaty. The answer is pretty simple: NATO has nothing to do with the North Atlantic. It is an anti-Russian military alliance.

Russia knew (or, rather, knows) that Ukraine has been courting both the European Union and NATO. Kiev wants to unite itself politically, economically, and militarily to the West. That would mean the United States has a right to place more troops and artillery on Russia's border. Russia didn't like that, and so it lashed out.
But the question is why does the United States want to put troops and artillery on Russia's border? Why has it maintained and, indeed, expanded this anti-Russian alliance, even though its original objective (i.e., the destruction of the Soviet Union) has been accomplished?

Our leaders have been clear on that point. To quote Richard Moore, the current chief of MI6: "With the tragedy and destruction unfolding so distressingly in Ukraine, we should remember the values and hard-won freedoms that distinguish us from Putin, none more than LGBT+ rights."
This isn't Kremlin disinformation. These are the words coming from the horse's mouth. We hate Russia because they are mean to the gays.
Deacon Nicholas Kotar, the great novelist and translator, gave a wider view:

Quote:

---

What the Russian government is doing is setting a red line to the spread of NGO-style liberal democracy. And Ukraine, unfortunately, has been a buffer zone, and a kind of test-case, for the spread, not of a political system, but of a system of values, that is espoused by the elites only....The problem is that with all these colored revolutions, no matter how you look at it, the thing that comes in together with the money is an insistence, unfortunately, on the adoption of the Western liberal cultural milieu. It happened in Georgia, it happened in Ukraine, it happened everywhere.

---

Ultimately, this isn't about Russia. It's not even about Ukraine. It's about us. Western elites want us to believe that the triumph of "NGO-style liberal democracy" is inevitable everywhere. But it's not. Russia is living proof of that.]

---

By contrast, when NATO expanded into the former Warsaw Pact nations and the Baltics, no permanent bases with standing maneuver units were stationed there.

---

Again, this is not true. Poland hosts both the forward command of the Army V Corps, first announced in 2020, and the "semi-permanent" headquarters of the 3rd Armored Brigade Combat Team of the 4th Infantry Division, which has been there since 2017 (and also has a rotational presence in Estonia and Latvia).

---

and what you say is true, but misleading. A forward command post is not a combat unit. There are no permanent bases with combat units permanently stationed in the former Warsaw Pact countries, out of deference to Russian sensitivities. the F-16s on Combat Air Patrol over Romania are permanently stationed in Germany and Italy. Those aircraft were maintained and fueled from their home bases. Yes, they landed on a "Nato airbase" in Romania. But the fuel, the refueling tankers, cargo flights of spare parts, etc....took off every few hours from home base back in Italy and Germany. ....because we do not permanently station combat aircraft in Romania, out of deference to Russia. We do, however, maintain the infrastructure in fmr WP countries to quickly receive those aircraft if/when needed. But they "live" in Germany and Italy. (and those bases in Germany and Italy had to bring in aircraft (mostly F-35s and F-15s) from elsewhere in the DOD to fulfill the mission of those F-16's sent to Romania.)

So my statement is both correct and true. We have no permanent stationing of combat units in fmr WP.

Out of deference to Russia.

Who invaded Ukraine anyway.

So what did that deference buy us?

Nothing.

It demonstrated weakness.

Russia exploited it.

Need to station armored divisions and combat aircraft in fmr WP nations soon.

To avoid showing further weakness to Russia.

---

They say that like it is a bad thing. I think it is great that we are getting permanent bases in Poland. If Germany doesn't want us, Poland sure does... Same with the Baltics.

---

There is no evidence of that.

The Germans love the injection of cash that U.S. imperial bases provide....and love the free protection.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/02/removal-of-us-troops-from-germany-will-gravely-affect-local-communities

[Simply not OK': removal of US troops worries German communities.
Politicians say withdrawal of up to 12,000 soldiers will hurt local economy and makes little strategic sense]

---

Poll: Germans Want US Troops and Nuclear Weapons to Leave Country (businessinsider.com)


There are more. But, amazing how the attitude changed when the Tanks rolled into Ukraine. US aint' so bad...

---

They also want to live without using coal power but also without building any more nuclear reactors.

I doubt the German leadership would ever actual try and remove US troops. And as you said if they were foolish enough to do that then Poland would be more than happy to have the huge injection of cash.

---

Not only cash, presence.

---

eh....the cash would be 90% of the attraction

---

2 years ago, maybe since Ukraine... Deterrence plays a big part, especially the newer NATO members on the frontier with Russia.I know don't tell me, that is not the real reason. Right? Is anything EVER as it seems or what the data shows? According to this site, no. There is always an "inside" reason that only the truly educated or well connected know!


Permanent deterrence: Enhancements to the US military presence in North Central Europe - Atlantic Council

---

Are we back to the idea that Russia is gonna attempt to roll their tanks into Warsaw again?

You and whiterock have to make up your minds. Is Russia this massively powerful military force that is about to expand deep into Central Europe....or is it a corrupt demographically declining nation that can not even force its will on a deeply corrupt and poor Ukraine?

It can't be bot

---

You know there is a reason Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland and now Finland are all joining NATO, basically anyone that borders Russia wants to join NATO! Russia.

There are so many Nations looking to join NATO that there is a multi-year process to get in. Yet, NATO and the US are bad? You don't see an inconsistency there, huh?

---

Another question that no one in D.C. wants to talk about is if these expansions post-1999 have even offered the NATO alliance much gain.

None of them even contribute the bare minimum for defense spending for instance.

[Currently, only the United States, Greece, Great Britain, and Poland have spent an average of 2 percent of GDP on their own defenses. The United States by far spends the most, with the average being 3.61 percent of GDP. The other countries spend around 1.5 percent or less, with Luxembourg coming in last at merely 0.44 percent of GDP. Iceland spends nothing on defense, but has no armed forces.]


Romania, Lithuania, Bulgaria? lol you can't really argue these poor broken down ex-soviet states have done much for the alliance...they are free riders at best.


["Ukraine's rightful place is in NATO," British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak recently declared.

Sunak might have a point: Ukraine would be right at home on NATO's ever-growing list of nations free-riding off of American security.

The most recent addition, Finland, currently fails to meet the alliance's 'requirement' for members to spend 2 percent of their GDP on defense spending. No matter; come on in! Hardly anyone follows that rule. Before Finland, North Macedonia (or whatever they're calling themselves these days) joined the alliance in 2020. It spends about 1.5 percent of its GDP on defense annually...and ranks second to last in total contributions to the alliance. The only country that provides less to the NATO alliance than North Macedonia is the country that joined before it, Montenegro, which spends far below 2 percent of its GDP.

Ukraine, a country completely reliant on the West for not only weapons but to keep their entire government afloat, will fit right in with the others currently huddling for shelter under America's nuclear umbrella.]

CEO of Northrop Grumman happily reports they've already got priced in that Ukraine-related contracts will "continue to flow" all the way through 2024. Hence their "support of the conflict." Note: any efforts at conflict-reduction would be contrary to their core business interests pic.twitter.com/nJa9jz9kSw

— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) June 2, 2023

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

"Democracy," i.e. recycled Marxism warmed over by Western NGOs and served to an ungrateful populace.

Russia doesn't need to be dragged into modernity. They've been there already.

---

That is not spin. That is detachment from reality.

Are you OK?

---

You just told me, apparently without irony, that our foreign policy has something to do with sorting out democracies from autocracies and acting as the selfless champion of the former.

Are you okay?

---

Unlike you, completely lucid. Tell us the rationale for Australia belonging to NATO.

---

Australia doesn't belong to NATO.

---

Correct. They have partner status along with Jordan. Same question applies. Why?

---

Obviously not to defend Australian democracy, since partner status entails no such commitment on our part. I'm sure it was meant to provide our operations with financial and other assistance, as well as give us bragging rights to a bigger "international coalition."

A much better question is why we're considering member status for Ukraine, a notoriously corrupt regime known for ethnic, religious, and political persecutions. Defending democracy is hardly a plausible explanation there, either.

---

Well, that last sentence actually is the answer.

Australian partner status (as well as Jordanian partner status) is a sign that NATO is indeed engaging in mission creep, but not at all in the way you and Red are alleging.

NATO is morphing into an alliance of liberal democracies.

Why is that a bad thing? Stable, pro-west, free-market countries with democratic processes banding together for common defense? I mean, reasonable people can argue costs and merits to the US taxpayer. But how on earth could that be "imperial ambition" to borrow Red's concept?

---

If we wanted to defend democracy in Ukraine, we'd have done so in 2014. There's been nothing but instability since then.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

"Democracy," i.e. recycled Marxism warmed over by Western NGOs and served to an ungrateful populace.

Russia doesn't need to be dragged into modernity. They've been there already.

---

That is not spin. That is detachment from reality.

Are you OK?

---

You just told me, apparently without irony, that our foreign policy has something to do with sorting out democracies from autocracies and acting as the selfless champion of the former.

Are you okay?

---

Unlike you, completely lucid. Tell us the rationale for Australia belonging to NATO.

---

Australia doesn't belong to NATO.

---

Correct. They have partner status along with Jordan. Same question applies. Why?

---

Obviously not to defend Australian democracy, since partner status entails no such commitment on our part. I'm sure it was meant to provide our operations with financial and other assistance, as well as give us bragging rights to a bigger "international coalition."

A much better question is why we're considering member status for Ukraine, a notoriously corrupt regime known for ethnic, religious, and political persecutions. Defending democracy is hardly a plausible explanation there, either.

---

Well, that last sentence actually is the answer.

Australian partner status (as well as Jordanian partner status) is a sign that NATO is indeed engaging in mission creep, but not at all in the way you and Red are alleging.

NATO is morphing into an alliance of liberal democracies.

Why is that a bad thing? Stable, pro-west, free-market countries with democratic processes banding together for common defense? I mean, reasonable people can argue costs and merits to the US taxpayer. But how on earth could that be "imperial ambition" to borrow Red's concept?

---

If we wanted to defend democracy in Ukraine, we'd have done so in 2014. There's been nothing but instability since then.

---

The ruling class in D.C. did not like the kind of outcomes that democracy in Ukraine was coming to pre-2014 coup.

The leaders they kept electing were far far to open to Moscow and peace.

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[The United States has committed itself to expanding NATO to Russia's borders. NATO, of course, stands for "North Atlantic Treaty Organization." A nave onlooker might ask why countries like Bulgaria, Finland, and Poland would be included in such a treaty. The answer is pretty simple: NATO has nothing to do with the North Atlantic. It is an anti-Russian military alliance.

Russia knew (or, rather, knows) that Ukraine has been courting both the European Union and NATO. Kiev wants to unite itself politically, economically, and militarily to the West. That would mean the United States has a right to place more troops and artillery on Russia's border. Russia didn't like that, and so it lashed out.
But the question is why does the United States want to put troops and artillery on Russia's border? Why has it maintained and, indeed, expanded this anti-Russian alliance, even though its original objective (i.e., the destruction of the Soviet Union) has been accomplished?

Our leaders have been clear on that point. To quote Richard Moore, the current chief of MI6: "With the tragedy and destruction unfolding so distressingly in Ukraine, we should remember the values and hard-won freedoms that distinguish us from Putin, none more than LGBT+ rights."
This isn't Kremlin disinformation. These are the words coming from the horse's mouth. We hate Russia because they are mean to the gays.
Deacon Nicholas Kotar, the great novelist and translator, gave a wider view:

Quote:

---

What the Russian government is doing is setting a red line to the spread of NGO-style liberal democracy. And Ukraine, unfortunately, has been a buffer zone, and a kind of test-case, for the spread, not of a political system, but of a system of values, that is espoused by the elites only....The problem is that with all these colored revolutions, no matter how you look at it, the thing that comes in together with the money is an insistence, unfortunately, on the adoption of the Western liberal cultural milieu. It happened in Georgia, it happened in Ukraine, it happened everywhere.

---

Ultimately, this isn't about Russia. It's not even about Ukraine. It's about us. Western elites want us to believe that the triumph of "NGO-style liberal democracy" is inevitable everywhere. But it's not. Russia is living proof of that.]

---

By contrast, when NATO expanded into the former Warsaw Pact nations and the Baltics, no permanent bases with standing maneuver units were stationed there.

---

Again, this is not true. Poland hosts both the forward command of the Army V Corps, first announced in 2020, and the "semi-permanent" headquarters of the 3rd Armored Brigade Combat Team of the 4th Infantry Division, which has been there since 2017 (and also has a rotational presence in Estonia and Latvia).

---

and what you say is true, but misleading. A forward command post is not a combat unit. There are no permanent bases with combat units permanently stationed in the former Warsaw Pact countries, out of deference to Russian sensitivities. the F-16s on Combat Air Patrol over Romania are permanently stationed in Germany and Italy. Those aircraft were maintained and fueled from their home bases. Yes, they landed on a "Nato airbase" in Romania. But the fuel, the refueling tankers, cargo flights of spare parts, etc....took off every few hours from home base back in Italy and Germany. ....because we do not permanently station combat aircraft in Romania, out of deference to Russia. We do, however, maintain the infrastructure in fmr WP countries to quickly receive those aircraft if/when needed. But they "live" in Germany and Italy. (and those bases in Germany and Italy had to bring in aircraft (mostly F-35s and F-15s) from elsewhere in the DOD to fulfill the mission of those F-16's sent to Romania.)

So my statement is both correct and true. We have no permanent stationing of combat units in fmr WP.

Out of deference to Russia.

Who invaded Ukraine anyway.

So what did that deference buy us?

Nothing.

It demonstrated weakness.

Russia exploited it.

Need to station armored divisions and combat aircraft in fmr WP nations soon.

To avoid showing further weakness to Russia.

---

They say that like it is a bad thing. I think it is great that we are getting permanent bases in Poland. If Germany doesn't want us, Poland sure does... Same with the Baltics.

---

There is no evidence of that.

The Germans love the injection of cash that U.S. imperial bases provide....and love the free protection.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/02/removal-of-us-troops-from-germany-will-gravely-affect-local-communities

[Simply not OK': removal of US troops worries German communities.
Politicians say withdrawal of up to 12,000 soldiers will hurt local economy and makes little strategic sense]

---

Poll: Germans Want US Troops and Nuclear Weapons to Leave Country (businessinsider.com)


There are more. But, amazing how the attitude changed when the Tanks rolled into Ukraine. US aint' so bad...

---

They also want to live without using coal power but also without building any more nuclear reactors.

I doubt the German leadership would ever actual try and remove US troops. And as you said if they were foolish enough to do that then Poland would be more than happy to have the huge injection of cash.

---

Not only cash, presence.

---

eh....the cash would be 90% of the attraction

---

2 years ago, maybe since Ukraine... Deterrence plays a big part, especially the newer NATO members on the frontier with Russia.I know don't tell me, that is not the real reason. Right? Is anything EVER as it seems or what the data shows? According to this site, no. There is always an "inside" reason that only the truly educated or well connected know!


Permanent deterrence: Enhancements to the US military presence in North Central Europe - Atlantic Council

---

Are we back to the idea that Russia is gonna attempt to roll their tanks into Warsaw again?

You and whiterock have to make up your minds. Is Russia this massively powerful military force that is about to expand deep into Central Europe....or is it a corrupt demographically declining nation that can not even force its will on a deeply corrupt and poor Ukraine?

It can't be bot

---

You know there is a reason Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland and now Finland are all joining NATO, basically anyone that borders Russia wants to join NATO! Russia.

There are so many Nations looking to join NATO that there is a multi-year process to get in. Yet, NATO and the US are bad? You don't see an inconsistency there, huh?

---

It does not bode well for your argument that you make to literally make up statements and attribute them to me.

I never said NATO and the USA are bad.

What people have questioned if is pushing NATO up to the very borders of Russia is in the best interest of average Americans and Europe in general.

---

Well, if NATO is a defensive organization to protect Europe it makes sense to include everything up to the borders of those that are prone to invade. Or, you get a Ukraine situation. What is the point of the organization if it can't accommodate a modern map?

And you and others on here have made the argument of how bad and "empire-building" US and NATO are. You are pro-Russia, I see nothing in the last 100 years that indicates that Russia has been a positive force or earned the benefit of the doubt. Ukraine should have been in NATO in 2013, if for no other reason to prevent Russia from invading, which they are prone to do.

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[The United States has committed itself to expanding NATO to Russia's borders. NATO, of course, stands for "North Atlantic Treaty Organization." A nave onlooker might ask why countries like Bulgaria, Finland, and Poland would be included in such a treaty. The answer is pretty simple: NATO has nothing to do with the North Atlantic. It is an anti-Russian military alliance.

Russia knew (or, rather, knows) that Ukraine has been courting both the European Union and NATO. Kiev wants to unite itself politically, economically, and militarily to the West. That would mean the United States has a right to place more troops and artillery on Russia's border. Russia didn't like that, and so it lashed out.
But the question is why does the United States want to put troops and artillery on Russia's border? Why has it maintained and, indeed, expanded this anti-Russian alliance, even though its original objective (i.e., the destruction of the Soviet Union) has been accomplished?

Our leaders have been clear on that point. To quote Richard Moore, the current chief of MI6: "With the tragedy and destruction unfolding so distressingly in Ukraine, we should remember the values and hard-won freedoms that distinguish us from Putin, none more than LGBT+ rights."
This isn't Kremlin disinformation. These are the words coming from the horse's mouth. We hate Russia because they are mean to the gays.
Deacon Nicholas Kotar, the great novelist and translator, gave a wider view:

Quote:

---

What the Russian government is doing is setting a red line to the spread of NGO-style liberal democracy. And Ukraine, unfortunately, has been a buffer zone, and a kind of test-case, for the spread, not of a political system, but of a system of values, that is espoused by the elites only....The problem is that with all these colored revolutions, no matter how you look at it, the thing that comes in together with the money is an insistence, unfortunately, on the adoption of the Western liberal cultural milieu. It happened in Georgia, it happened in Ukraine, it happened everywhere.

---

Ultimately, this isn't about Russia. It's not even about Ukraine. It's about us. Western elites want us to believe that the triumph of "NGO-style liberal democracy" is inevitable everywhere. But it's not. Russia is living proof of that.]

---

By contrast, when NATO expanded into the former Warsaw Pact nations and the Baltics, no permanent bases with standing maneuver units were stationed there.

---

Again, this is not true. Poland hosts both the forward command of the Army V Corps, first announced in 2020, and the "semi-permanent" headquarters of the 3rd Armored Brigade Combat Team of the 4th Infantry Division, which has been there since 2017 (and also has a rotational presence in Estonia and Latvia).

---

and what you say is true, but misleading. A forward command post is not a combat unit. There are no permanent bases with combat units permanently stationed in the former Warsaw Pact countries, out of deference to Russian sensitivities. the F-16s on Combat Air Patrol over Romania are permanently stationed in Germany and Italy. Those aircraft were maintained and fueled from their home bases. Yes, they landed on a "Nato airbase" in Romania. But the fuel, the refueling tankers, cargo flights of spare parts, etc....took off every few hours from home base back in Italy and Germany. ....because we do not permanently station combat aircraft in Romania, out of deference to Russia. We do, however, maintain the infrastructure in fmr WP countries to quickly receive those aircraft if/when needed. But they "live" in Germany and Italy. (and those bases in Germany and Italy had to bring in aircraft (mostly F-35s and F-15s) from elsewhere in the DOD to fulfill the mission of those F-16's sent to Romania.)

So my statement is both correct and true. We have no permanent stationing of combat units in fmr WP.

Out of deference to Russia.

Who invaded Ukraine anyway.

So what did that deference buy us?

Nothing.

It demonstrated weakness.

Russia exploited it.

Need to station armored divisions and combat aircraft in fmr WP nations soon.

To avoid showing further weakness to Russia.

---

They say that like it is a bad thing. I think it is great that we are getting permanent bases in Poland. If Germany doesn't want us, Poland sure does... Same with the Baltics.

---

There is no evidence of that.

The Germans love the injection of cash that U.S. imperial bases provide....and love the free protection.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/02/removal-of-us-troops-from-germany-will-gravely-affect-local-communities

[Simply not OK': removal of US troops worries German communities.
Politicians say withdrawal of up to 12,000 soldiers will hurt local economy and makes little strategic sense]

---

Poll: Germans Want US Troops and Nuclear Weapons to Leave Country (businessinsider.com)


There are more. But, amazing how the attitude changed when the Tanks rolled into Ukraine. US aint' so bad...

---

They also want to live without using coal power but also without building any more nuclear reactors.

I doubt the German leadership would ever actual try and remove US troops. And as you said if they were foolish enough to do that then Poland would be more than happy to have the huge injection of cash.

---

Not only cash, presence.

---

eh....the cash would be 90% of the attraction

---

2 years ago, maybe since Ukraine... Deterrence plays a big part, especially the newer NATO members on the frontier with Russia.I know don't tell me, that is not the real reason. Right? Is anything EVER as it seems or what the data shows? According to this site, no. There is always an "inside" reason that only the truly educated or well connected know!


Permanent deterrence: Enhancements to the US military presence in North Central Europe - Atlantic Council

---

Are we back to the idea that Russia is gonna attempt to roll their tanks into Warsaw again?

You and whiterock have to make up your minds. Is Russia this massively powerful military force that is about to expand deep into Central Europe....or is it a corrupt demographically declining nation that can not even force its will on a deeply corrupt and poor Ukraine?

It can't be bot

---

You know there is a reason Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland and now Finland are all joining NATO, basically anyone that borders Russia wants to join NATO! Russia.

There are so many Nations looking to join NATO that there is a multi-year process to get in. Yet, NATO and the US are bad? You don't see an inconsistency there, huh?

---

It does not bode well for your argument that you make to literally make up statements and attribute them to me.

I never said NATO and the USA are bad.

What people have questioned if is pushing NATO up to the very borders of Russia is in the best interest of average Americans and Europe in general.

---

Well, if NATO is a defensive organization to protect Europe it makes sense to include everything up to the borders of those that are prone to invade. Or, you get a Ukraine situation. What is the point of the organization if it can't accommodate a modern map?

And you and others on here have made the argument of how bad and "empire-building" US and NATO are. You are pro-Russia, I see nothing in the last 100 years that indicates that Russia has been a positive force or earned the benefit of the doubt. Ukraine should have been in NATO in 2013, if for no other reason to prevent Russia from invading, which they are prone to do.

---

What is the point of a defensive organization meant to prevent war...expanding endlessly to the point that war becomes inevitable?

You're argument is weak from the get go. Not to mention never seems to ask what is in the interest of the actual America people. But our sons lives on the line for Latvia and Bulgaria do NOT benefit us at all.

And Ukraine was not going to be in NATO back in 2013 because it had to get the approval of its actual voters.....you know the people you want to exclude. 1/3rd of the country was/is ethnic Russian and did not want to be in an anti-western Russian alliance that would only inflame the situation with its large neighbor.

You don't like that democratic outcome...just like our leaders in D.C. don't like democracy when it gets in the way of their plans...but its still a fact.

It took a coup d'etat in 2014 to set Ukraine on the path to NATO membership.

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[The United States has committed itself to expanding NATO to Russia's borders. NATO, of course, stands for "North Atlantic Treaty Organization." A nave onlooker might ask why countries like Bulgaria, Finland, and Poland would be included in such a treaty. The answer is pretty simple: NATO has nothing to do with the North Atlantic. It is an anti-Russian military alliance.

Russia knew (or, rather, knows) that Ukraine has been courting both the European Union and NATO. Kiev wants to unite itself politically, economically, and militarily to the West. That would mean the United States has a right to place more troops and artillery on Russia's border. Russia didn't like that, and so it lashed out.
But the question is why does the United States want to put troops and artillery on Russia's border? Why has it maintained and, indeed, expanded this anti-Russian alliance, even though its original objective (i.e., the destruction of the Soviet Union) has been accomplished?

Our leaders have been clear on that point. To quote Richard Moore, the current chief of MI6: "With the tragedy and destruction unfolding so distressingly in Ukraine, we should remember the values and hard-won freedoms that distinguish us from Putin, none more than LGBT+ rights."
This isn't Kremlin disinformation. These are the words coming from the horse's mouth. We hate Russia because they are mean to the gays.
Deacon Nicholas Kotar, the great novelist and translator, gave a wider view:

Quote:

---

What the Russian government is doing is setting a red line to the spread of NGO-style liberal democracy. And Ukraine, unfortunately, has been a buffer zone, and a kind of test-case, for the spread, not of a political system, but of a system of values, that is espoused by the elites only....The problem is that with all these colored revolutions, no matter how you look at it, the thing that comes in together with the money is an insistence, unfortunately, on the adoption of the Western liberal cultural milieu. It happened in Georgia, it happened in Ukraine, it happened everywhere.

---

Ultimately, this isn't about Russia. It's not even about Ukraine. It's about us. Western elites want us to believe that the triumph of "NGO-style liberal democracy" is inevitable everywhere. But it's not. Russia is living proof of that.]

---

By contrast, when NATO expanded into the former Warsaw Pact nations and the Baltics, no permanent bases with standing maneuver units were stationed there.

---

Again, this is not true. Poland hosts both the forward command of the Army V Corps, first announced in 2020, and the "semi-permanent" headquarters of the 3rd Armored Brigade Combat Team of the 4th Infantry Division, which has been there since 2017 (and also has a rotational presence in Estonia and Latvia).

---

and what you say is true, but misleading. A forward command post is not a combat unit. There are no permanent bases with combat units permanently stationed in the former Warsaw Pact countries, out of deference to Russian sensitivities. the F-16s on Combat Air Patrol over Romania are permanently stationed in Germany and Italy. Those aircraft were maintained and fueled from their home bases. Yes, they landed on a "Nato airbase" in Romania. But the fuel, the refueling tankers, cargo flights of spare parts, etc....took off every few hours from home base back in Italy and Germany. ....because we do not permanently station combat aircraft in Romania, out of deference to Russia. We do, however, maintain the infrastructure in fmr WP countries to quickly receive those aircraft if/when needed. But they "live" in Germany and Italy. (and those bases in Germany and Italy had to bring in aircraft (mostly F-35s and F-15s) from elsewhere in the DOD to fulfill the mission of those F-16's sent to Romania.)

So my statement is both correct and true. We have no permanent stationing of combat units in fmr WP.

Out of deference to Russia.

Who invaded Ukraine anyway.

So what did that deference buy us?

Nothing.

It demonstrated weakness.

Russia exploited it.

Need to station armored divisions and combat aircraft in fmr WP nations soon.

To avoid showing further weakness to Russia.

---

They say that like it is a bad thing. I think it is great that we are getting permanent bases in Poland. If Germany doesn't want us, Poland sure does... Same with the Baltics.

---

There is no evidence of that.

The Germans love the injection of cash that U.S. imperial bases provide....and love the free protection.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/02/removal-of-us-troops-from-germany-will-gravely-affect-local-communities

[Simply not OK': removal of US troops worries German communities.
Politicians say withdrawal of up to 12,000 soldiers will hurt local economy and makes little strategic sense]

---

Poll: Germans Want US Troops and Nuclear Weapons to Leave Country (businessinsider.com)


There are more. But, amazing how the attitude changed when the Tanks rolled into Ukraine. US aint' so bad...

---

They also want to live without using coal power but also without building any more nuclear reactors.

I doubt the German leadership would ever actual try and remove US troops. And as you said if they were foolish enough to do that then Poland would be more than happy to have the huge injection of cash.

---

Not only cash, presence.

---

eh....the cash would be 90% of the attraction

---

2 years ago, maybe since Ukraine... Deterrence plays a big part, especially the newer NATO members on the frontier with Russia.I know don't tell me, that is not the real reason. Right? Is anything EVER as it seems or what the data shows? According to this site, no. There is always an "inside" reason that only the truly educated or well connected know!


Permanent deterrence: Enhancements to the US military presence in North Central Europe - Atlantic Council

---

Are we back to the idea that Russia is gonna attempt to roll their tanks into Warsaw again?

You and whiterock have to make up your minds. Is Russia this massively powerful military force that is about to expand deep into Central Europe....or is it a corrupt demographically declining nation that can not even force its will on a deeply corrupt and poor Ukraine?

It can't be bot

---

You know there is a reason Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland and now Finland are all joining NATO, basically anyone that borders Russia wants to join NATO! Russia.

There are so many Nations looking to join NATO that there is a multi-year process to get in. Yet, NATO and the US are bad? You don't see an inconsistency there, huh?

---

It does not bode well for your argument that you make to literally make up statements and attribute them to me.

I never said NATO and the USA are bad.

What people have questioned if is pushing NATO up to the very borders of Russia is in the best interest of average Americans and Europe in general.

---

Well, if NATO is a defensive organization to protect Europe it makes sense to include everything up to the borders of those that are prone to invade. Or, you get a Ukraine situation. What is the point of the organization if it can't accommodate a modern map?

And you and others on here have made the argument of how bad and "empire-building" US and NATO are. You are pro-Russia, I see nothing in the last 100 years that indicates that Russia has been a positive force or earned the benefit of the doubt. Ukraine should have been in NATO in 2013, if for no other reason to prevent Russia from invading, which they are prone to do.

---

What is the point of a defensive organization meant to prevent war...expanding endlessly to the point that war becomes inevitable?

You're argument is weak from the get go. Not to mention never seems to ask what is in the interest of the actual America people. But our sons lives on the line for Latvia and Bulgaria do NOT benefit us at all.

And Ukraine was not going to be in NATO back in 2013 because it had to get the approval of its actual voters.....you know the people you want to exclude. 1/3rd of the country was/is ethnic Russian and did not want to be in an anti-western Russian alliance that would only inflame the situation with its large neighbor.

You don't like that democratic outcome...just like our leaders in D.C. don't like democracy when it gets in the way of their plans...but its still a fact.

It took a coup d'etat in 2014 to set Ukraine on the path to NATO membership.

---

How is it weak? Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania and Romania got freedom from Russia, the first thing they did was join NATO for protection from Russia. What the hell does that tell you? I can't believe you are supporting a guy that routinely rolls tanks. Georgia, Chechnya, Ukraine, Crimea. Of course they want to join NATO. As for NATO, it was sound strategy to accept them.

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

You think there is more reason to expand NATO into the east today than in 1990? What?

You think modern Russia is more of a threat than the super power that was the USSR?

---

Why does Russia have to be a threat for NATO to add nations that are like minded, want to join the EU and want freedom that security brings? Is Russia being a threat the only reason NATO can add? Or a nation that wants t o join NATO can join?

---

What common values and "like mindedness" do you think Britain, France, Albania, Canada, Romania, Portugal, Croatia, Turkey, Estonia, Greece, and the USA have?

The "liked mindedness" idea becomes even more hilarious when you look at the government of Turkey and its neo-Ottoman/semi-Islamist autocratic leader Erdogan and the post-national liberal governments of places like Canada.

---

And what was Turkey's Government like when they joined? Turkey is also a top 20ish economy and very Capitalist. Even if not, what is wrong with joining for security? You know the real world is not just meet all three or NO.

---

In 1952 Turkey had a Kemalist government (same type of guys who mass murdered the Christian Armenians and Assyrian Christians during world war I)

Also committed the anti-Greek Christian pogroms that destroyed the native Greeks of Istanbul who had been there since the time of Constantine the great.


[In 67 September 1955 an anti-Greek pogrom was orchestrated in Istanbul by the Turkish military's Tactical Mobilization Group. The events were triggered by the news that the Turkish consulate in Thessaloniki, north Greece the house where Mustafa Kemal Atatrk was born in 1881 had been bombed the day before. A bomb planted by a Turkish usher of the consulate, who was later arrested and confessed, incited the events. The Turkish press conveying the news in Turkey was silent about the arrest and instead insinuated that Greeks had set off the bomb. Over a dozen people died during or after the pogrom as a result of beatings and arson. Jews, Armenians and others were also harmed. In addition to commercial targets, the mob clearly targeted property owned or administered by the Greek Orthodox Church. 73 churches and 23 schools were vandalized, burned or destroyed, as were 8 asperses and 3 monasteries.

The pogrom greatly accelerated emigration of ethnic Greeks from Turkey, and the Istanbul region in particular. The Greek population of Turkey declined from 119,822 persons in 1927, to about 7,000 by 1978. In Istanbul alone, the Greek population decreased from 65,108 to 49,081 between 1955 and 1960.]

---

So Turkey should be out. The Baltics? Out. Finland, Sweden, Poland, Czech, Eastern Part of Germany, Australia, Romania... Basically, all of NATO should be disbanded and the US maybe pay reparations to most of the world while we are at it? How about adding Texas, NM, AZ and CA to give back to Mexico? Would giving AK to the Russians make up for all the harm we have done? HI needs to be reverted to a Kingdom, throw in the 7th Fleet to make up. That cover it? I am sure if you think about it there is someone else the US has harmed that we can pay. Maybe just dissolve the US. Would that suffice?


There is absolutely NOT ONE THING that NATO and US has done well according to you guys.

---

Well of course that is a lie and no one on this thread ever said that.

NATO was a necessary military alliance to stop the spread of Communism and the massive socialist empire called the USSR. The communists being backed up by the Red Army that had 400 division stationed in Europe, 25,000 tanks, and 45,000 nukes. Along with 8 other Warsaw pact countries under communist rule with their armies.

The USSR and the Warsaw pact are now long long gone.

https://www.foreignexchanges.news/p/nato-has-outlived-its-usefulness
[In many ways, NATO was wildly successful in its time. But that time is over, and now it should be dismantled...

The decision to keep NATO operating after the Cold War ensured that it functioned as support for the US hegemon. During the Cold War, as NATO's website proudly affirms, the organization's "forces were not involved in a single military engagement." Instead, to borrow the historian Walter LaFeber's phrasing, NATO was mainly used "as a means to deal with more immediate problems [than a Soviet invasion]the integration of the Federal Republic of Germany into the West, the easing of Franco-German hatreds, the anchoring of a Great Britain tossed between continental and Atlantic-Commonwealth interests," and other intra-North Atlantic concerns. It was primarily a tool of integration.

But once the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, NATO rapidly became an arm of the US Empire. Or as NATO's website benignly puts it, with "changing conditions came new responsibilities. From being an exclusively defensive alliance for nearly half a century, NATO began to assume an increasingly proactive role within the international community." It participated in the Gulf War; the conflicts that rent the former Yugoslavia; the War on Terror; the Afghanistan War; and the Iraq War, to name only a few of its contributions. Indeed, by early 2021, NATO was partaking in operations in Afghanistan, Kosovo, the Mediterranean, Africa, and elsewhere.

The alliance has also grown to thirty members, and now includes many nations that were once in the Soviet sphere of influence, like Albania, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Romania. Unsurprisingly, the organization's wanton expansion into Eastern Europe has provoked Russia imagine how US decision-makers would have felt had Canada or Mexico joined the Warsaw Pact and NATO has been a useful foil for Russian President Vladimir Putin, helping him justify his revanchist foreign policy.

As this all suggests, there are significant drawbacks to NATO's continuing existence.]

---

Doesn't the Russian invasion of Ukraine demonstrate that oldest Russian desires for empire are alive and well?

---

No, not really. Russia's position isn't what it was during the time of the czars or the empire. It's not even what it was during the Cold War, when their forces were massed across from NATO with clear paths of attack. To say Russia will always do such-and-such because that's what they did centuries ago is meaningless. It's just another way of saying you don't like or trust Russia.

The explanation for the Ukraine war is in recent history, and it's all too obvious. They're doing what any great power would do in their situation.

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[The United States has committed itself to expanding NATO to Russia's borders. NATO, of course, stands for "North Atlantic Treaty Organization." A nave onlooker might ask why countries like Bulgaria, Finland, and Poland would be included in such a treaty. The answer is pretty simple: NATO has nothing to do with the North Atlantic. It is an anti-Russian military alliance.

Russia knew (or, rather, knows) that Ukraine has been courting both the European Union and NATO. Kiev wants to unite itself politically, economically, and militarily to the West. That would mean the United States has a right to place more troops and artillery on Russia's border. Russia didn't like that, and so it lashed out.
But the question is why does the United States want to put troops and artillery on Russia's border? Why has it maintained and, indeed, expanded this anti-Russian alliance, even though its original objective (i.e., the destruction of the Soviet Union) has been accomplished?

Our leaders have been clear on that point. To quote Richard Moore, the current chief of MI6: "With the tragedy and destruction unfolding so distressingly in Ukraine, we should remember the values and hard-won freedoms that distinguish us from Putin, none more than LGBT+ rights."
This isn't Kremlin disinformation. These are the words coming from the horse's mouth. We hate Russia because they are mean to the gays.
Deacon Nicholas Kotar, the great novelist and translator, gave a wider view:

Quote:

---

What the Russian government is doing is setting a red line to the spread of NGO-style liberal democracy. And Ukraine, unfortunately, has been a buffer zone, and a kind of test-case, for the spread, not of a political system, but of a system of values, that is espoused by the elites only....The problem is that with all these colored revolutions, no matter how you look at it, the thing that comes in together with the money is an insistence, unfortunately, on the adoption of the Western liberal cultural milieu. It happened in Georgia, it happened in Ukraine, it happened everywhere.

---

Ultimately, this isn't about Russia. It's not even about Ukraine. It's about us. Western elites want us to believe that the triumph of "NGO-style liberal democracy" is inevitable everywhere. But it's not. Russia is living proof of that.]

---

By contrast, when NATO expanded into the former Warsaw Pact nations and the Baltics, no permanent bases with standing maneuver units were stationed there.

---

Again, this is not true. Poland hosts both the forward command of the Army V Corps, first announced in 2020, and the "semi-permanent" headquarters of the 3rd Armored Brigade Combat Team of the 4th Infantry Division, which has been there since 2017 (and also has a rotational presence in Estonia and Latvia).

---

and what you say is true, but misleading. A forward command post is not a combat unit. There are no permanent bases with combat units permanently stationed in the former Warsaw Pact countries, out of deference to Russian sensitivities. the F-16s on Combat Air Patrol over Romania are permanently stationed in Germany and Italy. Those aircraft were maintained and fueled from their home bases. Yes, they landed on a "Nato airbase" in Romania. But the fuel, the refueling tankers, cargo flights of spare parts, etc....took off every few hours from home base back in Italy and Germany. ....because we do not permanently station combat aircraft in Romania, out of deference to Russia. We do, however, maintain the infrastructure in fmr WP countries to quickly receive those aircraft if/when needed. But they "live" in Germany and Italy. (and those bases in Germany and Italy had to bring in aircraft (mostly F-35s and F-15s) from elsewhere in the DOD to fulfill the mission of those F-16's sent to Romania.)

So my statement is both correct and true. We have no permanent stationing of combat units in fmr WP.

Out of deference to Russia.

Who invaded Ukraine anyway.

So what did that deference buy us?

Nothing.

It demonstrated weakness.

Russia exploited it.

Need to station armored divisions and combat aircraft in fmr WP nations soon.

To avoid showing further weakness to Russia.

---

They say that like it is a bad thing. I think it is great that we are getting permanent bases in Poland. If Germany doesn't want us, Poland sure does... Same with the Baltics.

---

There is no evidence of that.

The Germans love the injection of cash that U.S. imperial bases provide....and love the free protection.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/02/removal-of-us-troops-from-germany-will-gravely-affect-local-communities

[Simply not OK': removal of US troops worries German communities.
Politicians say withdrawal of up to 12,000 soldiers will hurt local economy and makes little strategic sense]

---

Poll: Germans Want US Troops and Nuclear Weapons to Leave Country (businessinsider.com)


There are more. But, amazing how the attitude changed when the Tanks rolled into Ukraine. US aint' so bad...

---

They also want to live without using coal power but also without building any more nuclear reactors.

I doubt the German leadership would ever actual try and remove US troops. And as you said if they were foolish enough to do that then Poland would be more than happy to have the huge injection of cash.

---

Not only cash, presence.

---

eh....the cash would be 90% of the attraction

---

2 years ago, maybe since Ukraine... Deterrence plays a big part, especially the newer NATO members on the frontier with Russia.I know don't tell me, that is not the real reason. Right? Is anything EVER as it seems or what the data shows? According to this site, no. There is always an "inside" reason that only the truly educated or well connected know!


Permanent deterrence: Enhancements to the US military presence in North Central Europe - Atlantic Council

---

Are we back to the idea that Russia is gonna attempt to roll their tanks into Warsaw again?

You and whiterock have to make up your minds. Is Russia this massively powerful military force that is about to expand deep into Central Europe....or is it a corrupt demographically declining nation that can not even force its will on a deeply corrupt and poor Ukraine?

It can't be bot

---

You know there is a reason Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland and now Finland are all joining NATO, basically anyone that borders Russia wants to join NATO! Russia.

There are so many Nations looking to join NATO that there is a multi-year process to get in. Yet, NATO and the US are bad? You don't see an inconsistency there, huh?

---

It does not bode well for your argument that you make to literally make up statements and attribute them to me.

I never said NATO and the USA are bad.

What people have questioned if is pushing NATO up to the very borders of Russia is in the best interest of average Americans and Europe in general.

---

Well, if NATO is a defensive organization to protect Europe it makes sense to include everything up to the borders of those that are prone to invade. Or, you get a Ukraine situation. What is the point of the organization if it can't accommodate a modern map?

And you and others on here have made the argument of how bad and "empire-building" US and NATO are. You are pro-Russia, I see nothing in the last 100 years that indicates that Russia has been a positive force or earned the benefit of the doubt. Ukraine should have been in NATO in 2013, if for no other reason to prevent Russia from invading, which they are prone to do.

---

What is the point of a defensive organization meant to prevent war...expanding endlessly to the point that war becomes inevitable?

You're argument is weak from the get go. Not to mention never seems to ask what is in the interest of the actual America people. But our sons lives on the line for Latvia and Bulgaria do NOT benefit us at all.

And Ukraine was not going to be in NATO back in 2013 because it had to get the approval of its actual voters.....you know the people you want to exclude. 1/3rd of the country was/is ethnic Russian and did not want to be in an anti-western Russian alliance that would only inflame the situation with its large neighbor.

You don't like that democratic outcome...just like our leaders in D.C. don't like democracy when it gets in the way of their plans...but its still a fact.

It took a coup d'etat in 2014 to set Ukraine on the path to NATO membership.

---

How is it weak? Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania and Romania got freedom from Russia, the first thing they did was join NATO for protection from Russia. What the hell does that tell you? I can't believe you are supporting a guy that routinely rolls tanks. Georgia, Chechnya, Ukraine, Crimea. Of course they want to join NATO. As for NATO, it was sound strategy to accept them.

---

They already had freedom from Russia...technically freedom from the Communist USSR.

Remember that it was Yeltsin and Russia voting to secede from the USSR that killed it

And you have no proof that Russia wants to invade and take over Poland or Romania...that is insane to even argue.

Not to mention if a country wants to join NATO it has to be evaluated for how that will help the American people. Poland make sense....the baltic states or Romania far less.

But in the end the 2004 expansion of NATO already happened...its spilt milk at this point.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[The United States has committed itself to expanding NATO to Russia's borders. NATO, of course, stands for "North Atlantic Treaty Organization." A nave onlooker might ask why countries like Bulgaria, Finland, and Poland would be included in such a treaty. The answer is pretty simple: NATO has nothing to do with the North Atlantic. It is an anti-Russian military alliance.

Russia knew (or, rather, knows) that Ukraine has been courting both the European Union and NATO. Kiev wants to unite itself politically, economically, and militarily to the West. That would mean the United States has a right to place more troops and artillery on Russia's border. Russia didn't like that, and so it lashed out.
But the question is why does the United States want to put troops and artillery on Russia's border? Why has it maintained and, indeed, expanded this anti-Russian alliance, even though its original objective (i.e., the destruction of the Soviet Union) has been accomplished?

Our leaders have been clear on that point. To quote Richard Moore, the current chief of MI6: "With the tragedy and destruction unfolding so distressingly in Ukraine, we should remember the values and hard-won freedoms that distinguish us from Putin, none more than LGBT+ rights."
This isn't Kremlin disinformation. These are the words coming from the horse's mouth. We hate Russia because they are mean to the gays.
Deacon Nicholas Kotar, the great novelist and translator, gave a wider view:

Quote:

---

What the Russian government is doing is setting a red line to the spread of NGO-style liberal democracy. And Ukraine, unfortunately, has been a buffer zone, and a kind of test-case, for the spread, not of a political system, but of a system of values, that is espoused by the elites only....The problem is that with all these colored revolutions, no matter how you look at it, the thing that comes in together with the money is an insistence, unfortunately, on the adoption of the Western liberal cultural milieu. It happened in Georgia, it happened in Ukraine, it happened everywhere.

---

Ultimately, this isn't about Russia. It's not even about Ukraine. It's about us. Western elites want us to believe that the triumph of "NGO-style liberal democracy" is inevitable everywhere. But it's not. Russia is living proof of that.]

---

By contrast, when NATO expanded into the former Warsaw Pact nations and the Baltics, no permanent bases with standing maneuver units were stationed there.

---

Again, this is not true. Poland hosts both the forward command of the Army V Corps, first announced in 2020, and the "semi-permanent" headquarters of the 3rd Armored Brigade Combat Team of the 4th Infantry Division, which has been there since 2017 (and also has a rotational presence in Estonia and Latvia).

---

and what you say is true, but misleading. A forward command post is not a combat unit. There are no permanent bases with combat units permanently stationed in the former Warsaw Pact countries, out of deference to Russian sensitivities. the F-16s on Combat Air Patrol over Romania are permanently stationed in Germany and Italy. Those aircraft were maintained and fueled from their home bases. Yes, they landed on a "Nato airbase" in Romania. But the fuel, the refueling tankers, cargo flights of spare parts, etc....took off every few hours from home base back in Italy and Germany. ....because we do not permanently station combat aircraft in Romania, out of deference to Russia. We do, however, maintain the infrastructure in fmr WP countries to quickly receive those aircraft if/when needed. But they "live" in Germany and Italy. (and those bases in Germany and Italy had to bring in aircraft (mostly F-35s and F-15s) from elsewhere in the DOD to fulfill the mission of those F-16's sent to Romania.)

So my statement is both correct and true. We have no permanent stationing of combat units in fmr WP.

Out of deference to Russia.

Who invaded Ukraine anyway.

So what did that deference buy us?

Nothing.

It demonstrated weakness.

Russia exploited it.

Need to station armored divisions and combat aircraft in fmr WP nations soon.

To avoid showing further weakness to Russia.

---

You've moved the goalposts since we last talked about this, but okay. The tank brigade is combat ready and based in a six-year-old facility with no plans to leave. So you're making a distinction without much of a difference.

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[The United States has committed itself to expanding NATO to Russia's borders. NATO, of course, stands for "North Atlantic Treaty Organization." A nave onlooker might ask why countries like Bulgaria, Finland, and Poland would be included in such a treaty. The answer is pretty simple: NATO has nothing to do with the North Atlantic. It is an anti-Russian military alliance.

Russia knew (or, rather, knows) that Ukraine has been courting both the European Union and NATO. Kiev wants to unite itself politically, economically, and militarily to the West. That would mean the United States has a right to place more troops and artillery on Russia's border. Russia didn't like that, and so it lashed out.
But the question is why does the United States want to put troops and artillery on Russia's border? Why has it maintained and, indeed, expanded this anti-Russian alliance, even though its original objective (i.e., the destruction of the Soviet Union) has been accomplished?

Our leaders have been clear on that point. To quote Richard Moore, the current chief of MI6: "With the tragedy and destruction unfolding so distressingly in Ukraine, we should remember the values and hard-won freedoms that distinguish us from Putin, none more than LGBT+ rights."
This isn't Kremlin disinformation. These are the words coming from the horse's mouth. We hate Russia because they are mean to the gays.
Deacon Nicholas Kotar, the great novelist and translator, gave a wider view:

Quote:

---

What the Russian government is doing is setting a red line to the spread of NGO-style liberal democracy. And Ukraine, unfortunately, has been a buffer zone, and a kind of test-case, for the spread, not of a political system, but of a system of values, that is espoused by the elites only....The problem is that with all these colored revolutions, no matter how you look at it, the thing that comes in together with the money is an insistence, unfortunately, on the adoption of the Western liberal cultural milieu. It happened in Georgia, it happened in Ukraine, it happened everywhere.

---

Ultimately, this isn't about Russia. It's not even about Ukraine. It's about us. Western elites want us to believe that the triumph of "NGO-style liberal democracy" is inevitable everywhere. But it's not. Russia is living proof of that.]

---

By contrast, when NATO expanded into the former Warsaw Pact nations and the Baltics, no permanent bases with standing maneuver units were stationed there.

---

Again, this is not true. Poland hosts both the forward command of the Army V Corps, first announced in 2020, and the "semi-permanent" headquarters of the 3rd Armored Brigade Combat Team of the 4th Infantry Division, which has been there since 2017 (and also has a rotational presence in Estonia and Latvia).

---

and what you say is true, but misleading. A forward command post is not a combat unit. There are no permanent bases with combat units permanently stationed in the former Warsaw Pact countries, out of deference to Russian sensitivities. the F-16s on Combat Air Patrol over Romania are permanently stationed in Germany and Italy. Those aircraft were maintained and fueled from their home bases. Yes, they landed on a "Nato airbase" in Romania. But the fuel, the refueling tankers, cargo flights of spare parts, etc....took off every few hours from home base back in Italy and Germany. ....because we do not permanently station combat aircraft in Romania, out of deference to Russia. We do, however, maintain the infrastructure in fmr WP countries to quickly receive those aircraft if/when needed. But they "live" in Germany and Italy. (and those bases in Germany and Italy had to bring in aircraft (mostly F-35s and F-15s) from elsewhere in the DOD to fulfill the mission of those F-16's sent to Romania.)

So my statement is both correct and true. We have no permanent stationing of combat units in fmr WP.

Out of deference to Russia.

Who invaded Ukraine anyway.

So what did that deference buy us?

Nothing.

It demonstrated weakness.

Russia exploited it.

Need to station armored divisions and combat aircraft in fmr WP nations soon.

To avoid showing further weakness to Russia.

---

They say that like it is a bad thing. I think it is great that we are getting permanent bases in Poland. If Germany doesn't want us, Poland sure does... Same with the Baltics.

---

There is no evidence of that.

The Germans love the injection of cash that U.S. imperial bases provide....and love the free protection.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/02/removal-of-us-troops-from-germany-will-gravely-affect-local-communities

[Simply not OK': removal of US troops worries German communities.
Politicians say withdrawal of up to 12,000 soldiers will hurt local economy and makes little strategic sense]

---

Poll: Germans Want US Troops and Nuclear Weapons to Leave Country (businessinsider.com)


There are more. But, amazing how the attitude changed when the Tanks rolled into Ukraine. US aint' so bad...

---

They also want to live without using coal power but also without building any more nuclear reactors.

I doubt the German leadership would ever actual try and remove US troops. And as you said if they were foolish enough to do that then Poland would be more than happy to have the huge injection of cash.

---

Not only cash, presence.

---

eh....the cash would be 90% of the attraction

---

2 years ago, maybe since Ukraine... Deterrence plays a big part, especially the newer NATO members on the frontier with Russia.I know don't tell me, that is not the real reason. Right? Is anything EVER as it seems or what the data shows? According to this site, no. There is always an "inside" reason that only the truly educated or well connected know!


Permanent deterrence: Enhancements to the US military presence in North Central Europe - Atlantic Council

---

Are we back to the idea that Russia is gonna attempt to roll their tanks into Warsaw again?

You and whiterock have to make up your minds. Is Russia this massively powerful military force that is about to expand deep into Central Europe....or is it a corrupt demographically declining nation that can not even force its will on a deeply corrupt and poor Ukraine?

It can't be bot

---

You know there is a reason Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland and now Finland are all joining NATO, basically anyone that borders Russia wants to join NATO! Russia.

There are so many Nations looking to join NATO that there is a multi-year process to get in. Yet, NATO and the US are bad? You don't see an inconsistency there, huh?

---

It does not bode well for your argument that you make to literally make up statements and attribute them to me.

I never said NATO and the USA are bad.

What people have questioned if is pushing NATO up to the very borders of Russia is in the best interest of average Americans and Europe in general.

---

Well, if NATO is a defensive organization to protect Europe it makes sense to include everything up to the borders of those that are prone to invade. Or, you get a Ukraine situation. What is the point of the organization if it can't accommodate a modern map?

And you and others on here have made the argument of how bad and "empire-building" US and NATO are. You are pro-Russia, I see nothing in the last 100 years that indicates that Russia has been a positive force or earned the benefit of the doubt. Ukraine should have been in NATO in 2013, if for no other reason to prevent Russia from invading, which they are prone to do.

---

What is the point of a defensive organization meant to prevent war...expanding endlessly to the point that war becomes inevitable?

You're argument is weak from the get go. Not to mention never seems to ask what is in the interest of the actual America people. But our sons lives on the line for Latvia and Bulgaria do NOT benefit us at all.

And Ukraine was not going to be in NATO back in 2013 because it had to get the approval of its actual voters.....you know the people you want to exclude. 1/3rd of the country was/is ethnic Russian and did not want to be in an anti-western Russian alliance that would only inflame the situation with its large neighbor.

You don't like that democratic outcome...just like our leaders in D.C. don't like democracy when it gets in the way of their plans...but its still a fact.

It took a coup d'etat in 2014 to set Ukraine on the path to NATO membership.

---

How is it weak? Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania and Romania got freedom from Russia, the first thing they did was join NATO for protection from Russia. What the hell does that tell you? I can't believe you are supporting a guy that routinely rolls tanks. Georgia, Chechnya, Ukraine, Crimea. Of course they want to join NATO. As for NATO, it was sound strategy to accept them.

---

They already had freedom from Russia...technically freedom from the Communist USSR.

Remember that it was Yeltsin and Russia voting to secede from the USSR that killed it

And you have no proof that Russia wants to invade and take over Poland or Romania...that is insane to even argue.

Not to mention if a country wants to join NATO it has to be evaluated for how that will help the American people. Poland make sense....the baltic states or Romania far less.

But in the end the 2004 expansion of NATO already happened...its spilt milk at this point.

---

Of course they don't want to invade Poland and Romania, they would have to deal with NATO.

If you are the true humanist you clam and want peace, the quickest way to peace is make Ukraine a NATO member. If Ukraine was in NATO when the Baltics and Poland came in, no invasion. Crimea is still part of Ukraine. Capitulation leads to war and massive death.