Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[Sheb]

There already is no mechanism for NATO to go into war in an offensive nations.  The treaty is a purely defensive one. Which doesn't stop NATO countries from invading places (Hello Afghanistan), so I fail to see how another name would change that.

As for Russia not invading a NATO member, I agree with you. NATO is protecting those countries. By having troops in those countries. That's why Russia won't invade.

And oil-producing countries != the global economy. It's going to hurt oil-producing countries and help oil-consuming countries.

[smjjames]

There already is no mechanism for NATO to go into war in an offensive nations.  The treaty is a purely defensive one. Which doesn't stop NATO countries from invading places (Hello Afghanistan), so I fail to see how another name would change that.

As for Russia not invading a NATO member, I agree with you. NATO is protecting those countries. By having troops in those countries. That's why Russia won't invade.

And oil-producing countries != the global economy. It's going to hurt oil-producing countries and help oil-consuming countries.

Hold on a sec, I thought NATO went into Afghanistan because we dragged our NATO allies into it and it wasn't entirely willingly?

[Owlbread]

Don't underestimate the silliness of some people, Sheb. NATO is a brand so politically charged and so toxic that expanding in that region can only bring trouble. Even if a new defensive pact was written along the same lines as NATO in reality, it would be infinitely better received for the simple fact that it's not NATO.

[Sheb]

smjjames, I'm honestly not sure. Article 5 was invoked after 9/11, but AFAIK, the actual invasion was done by the US and Brits, with NATO accepting to manage the occupation later on.

[Loud Whispers]

Strawman. No one think Russia is going to invade Sweden.

Right now Russia's dickwaving with jets, frigates and subs from the British Isles to the Baltics to give a clear message: If you align with NATO, you are a target. That's why slavboats are scubadiving in Swedish waters, Putin wants to scare the Scandi politicians away from fusing its security with central Yurop.
Granted I reckon Sweden's more likely to be invaded by Denmark and Finland than Russia, it's just a psychological war and propaganda. No one thinks Russia will invade Sweden but who would want to leave the gate down for Russia either?

[olemars]

The invocation of article 5 did not involve any active combat from NATO after 9/11. It mostly meant the Luxembourg air force was deployed over the US and various other elements were shipped over to provide extra cover (I remember norwegian mobile SAM batteries were deployed in Washington DC). The Afghanistan invasion was a "Coalition of the Willing" sort of thing, mostly the US and UK. NATO took command of ISAF a couple of years later after a UNSC resolution or something.

[Darvi]

... we have an air horse?

[smjjames]

... we have an air horse?

I guess you're from Luxembourg? I had you pinned as maybe American.

[LordSlowpoke]

darvi's strayan

[olemars]

The Luxembourg Air Force is the result of some NATO brass having an actual sense of humour.

NATO acquired 18 Boeing E-3As and support equipment for a NATO air defense force. Since all aircraft must be registered with a certain country, the decision was made to register the 18 NATO AWACS planes with Luxembourg, because until that point Luxembourg did not have an air force.

[smjjames]

darvi's strayan

Oh right, nvm.

[scriver]

No, Darvi is Luxembourgian. And English, Belgian, French, Dutch, and German (but not Hollander).

[Darvi]

Y'all be crazy. Never change. Except when you do, that's fine too.

[10ebbor10]

They also bought an A400 in cooperation with Belgium.

[Helgoland]

Sharing military hardware? Well, the Netherlands are already relying on German tanks for their defense, so...