Are the Democrats about to cook up a fake war

Mr Doof

Duke status
Jan 23, 2002
23,368
5,584
113
San Francisco, CA
Putin's issue is with NATO.....which basically doesn't;t exist anymore anyway except for fancy parties the members throw each other. Germany doesn't contribute anything anymore, France was never a member. There's a US UK FR partnership and a bunch of countries not names Germany that allow the US UK FR to use their air space. This is a perfect time to step back and let NATO countries put up or shut up.
You think NATO exists to throw parties and nothings else? Then what is Putin going on about when he says stuff about not letting Ukraine join NATO? He is upset at not being invited to parties?

France is a founding member of NATO, so, not sure what you mean about them never being a member.

The funding thing....its supposed to be some % of GNP, right? Is it 2%? And a few members don't pony up that % because, well, because after the cold war ended, why pay? Whatever, it bugs me that various parties in an agreement (a treaty as it were) don't live up to the agreements. Part of me admits to not wanting to get involved and part of me wants point to how poorly Europe responded to the break-up of Yugoslavia as proof of what happens when neighbors say, "Not my problem."

I think Germany may now be regretting turning off their nuke plans because they are even more reliant on Russian fuel, and I wonder if Poland is thinking that if push comes to shove that it might be a good time to take back some of "their" land:

1644277031215.png
 

VonMeister

Duke status
Apr 26, 2013
18,763
5,801
113
JOE BIDENS RAPE FINGER
NATO throws parties for each other..that's it. What started as a security pact based on all for one and one for all deteriorated as countries became self sufficient and had their own singular goals. Germany has been "in name only" for decades. other counties..like Poland for instance spend every waking minute hoping that Russia fears that NATO will be NATO. The NATO pact says that an attack against any NATO country is considered attack against every NATO country. If Russia invaded the border area of Poland do you think Germany would get involved? This is Polands greatest fear. Germany already closed their airspace to NATO planes supporting Ukraine.

Putin does not want the US in Ukraine. If Ukraine joins NATO their fear is that the US will base offensive military units there, which include a lot of planes and missiles capable of ruining Putins plans in Georgia and maybe even perhaps making things difficult in Crimea. There isn't anyone on earth who feels that a NATO country not named UK or US is going to do anything in the Ukraine. Putins concern begins and ends with the US and his opinion that they will use NATO as an excuse to move assets on his border.

France is not in NATO. France works closely with NATO countries, and attache's assigned in Brussles to coordinate things...but it's not in NATO and hasn't been since you and I were born.

Fun fact. If Putin never annexed Crimea and Ukraine had free and fair elections they would be part of Russia right now. Crimea and the border area of Ukraine where the fighting is going on is 100% Russian people.
 

Ifallalot

Duke status
Dec 17, 2008
80,432
12,469
113
Glad to see once mighty Germany and France completely cucked by hysterical apocalyptic screeching

We’ve bailed out Europe enough times, and our money has been stolen from us for NATO and the UN for 3/4 of a century

PTSD from two awful wars that decimated the strong male genes of a whole continent can create a whole population that lives in an imagined utopia, and we’re seeing the results of that now
 

VonMeister

Duke status
Apr 26, 2013
18,763
5,801
113
JOE BIDENS RAPE FINGER
They were an original founder but left NATO in 1966. They maintain a delegation...it would be silly for a European superpower to not have a close alliance with other western countries and contribute to it's collective defense....but they are not an integrated part of NATO (coordinated would be more accurate). Embarrassing enough...they commit a larger part of their GDP just over 2%, to the alliance than most other NATO member states.

I think it has more to do with the French not allowing troops to be under the command of NATO than anything else. I'm certain you would find less daylight between France and NATO that say Germany and NATO. I'm not sure why Doof brought it up....it certainly wasn't my point. NATO being fragmented and ineffective was my point. France is an ally to Europe and a significant global military power that never wavers.
 
Last edited:

Mr Doof

Duke status
Jan 23, 2002
23,368
5,584
113
San Francisco, CA
I'm not sure why Doof brought it up....it certainly wasn't my point. NATO being fragmented and ineffective was my point. France is an ally to Europe and a significant global military power that never wavers.
I brought it up because you said:
.....France was never a member.
This is factually wrong. I don't see any nuance expressed in that phrase.

If you mean something else, like "they were never a member in spirit but did sign the paperwork for optics", say that (and let us discuss what that means) and don't say factually wrong things.


France is not in NATO. France works closely with NATO countries, and attache's assigned in Brussles to coordinate things...but it's not in NATO and hasn't been since you and I were born.
Agree to disagree....but I do understand where you are coming from. For certain, the French don't buy in as hard as other founding states.

Source 1

1644349216644.png

Source 2

1644349582006.png


Source 3

1644349318361.png
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: plasticbertrand

PRCD

Kelly Slater status
Feb 25, 2020
9,486
5,931
113
You think NATO exists to throw parties and nothings else? Then what is Putin going on about when he says stuff about not letting Ukraine join NATO? He is upset at not being invited to parties?

France is a founding member of NATO, so, not sure what you mean about them never being a member.

The funding thing....its supposed to be some % of GNP, right? Is it 2%? And a few members don't pony up that % because, well, because after the cold war ended, why pay? Whatever, it bugs me that various parties in an agreement (a treaty as it were) don't live up to the agreements. Part of me admits to not wanting to get involved and part of me wants point to how poorly Europe responded to the break-up of Yugoslavia as proof of what happens when neighbors say, "Not my problem."

I think Germany may now be regretting turning off their nuke plans because they are even more reliant on Russian fuel, and I wonder if Poland is thinking that if push comes to shove that it might be a good time to take back some of "their" land:
NATO is a moribund alliance of mostly demographically-dying countries that have no will to fight. They're much like the Persian empire when Alexander invaded or the Roman empire when Attila attacked or the kingdoms invaded by Genghis Khan. These fictional map alliances dissolve when guys with guns show up.
 

VonMeister

Duke status
Apr 26, 2013
18,763
5,801
113
JOE BIDENS RAPE FINGER
I brought it up because you said:


This is factually wrong. I don't see any nuance expressed in that phrase.

If you mean something else, like "they were never a member in spirit but did sign the paperwork for optics", say that (and let us discuss what that means) and don't say factually wrong things.




Agree to disagree....but I do understand where you are coming from. For certain, the French don't buy in as hard as other founding states.

Source 1

View attachment 123841

Source 2

View attachment 123843


Source 3

View attachment 123842
Charles de Gaulle took France out of NATO (and secretly hated the US). CDG wanted France to be known as a global power on par with the US....always romanticizing about the days that they were. They are not a member no matter what Wikipedia claims. Maybe "member" is a fungible term though. Germany is clearly a card carrying member of NATO but functionally not a member in the least...where France is absolutely committed to the security of Europe and the most reliable global ally of the western world..more-so than the US today.
 

Mr Doof

Duke status
Jan 23, 2002
23,368
5,584
113
San Francisco, CA
NATO is a moribund alliance of mostly demographically-dying countries that have no will to fight. They're much like the Persian empire when Alexander invaded or the Roman empire when Attila attacked or the kingdoms invaded by Genghis Khan. These fictional map alliances dissolve when guys with guns show up.
Certainly seemed to be true when Yugoslavia broke up...materially speaking, USA did the heavy lifting, though on paper, NATO was involved.

I always figure that practically speaking, NATO was created to fight the last war (European theater) and pool resources for what became the Cold War.

[Cold War I ended, more or less when Soviet Union collapsed, so NATO worked? Seems like it to me. Cold War II started.....I don't know, when China and Russia started cooperating a little more?]

Guess I would use different word than "fictional" to describe NATO but I get that you are using it to describe your thoughts/feelings on the concreteness of the alliance in the face of actual military action.
 
Last edited:

PRCD

Kelly Slater status
Feb 25, 2020
9,486
5,931
113
Certainly seemed to be true when Yugoslavia broke up...materially speaking, USA did the heavy lifting, though on paper, NATO was involved.

Guess I would use different word than "fictional" to describe NATO but I get that you are using it to describe your thoughts/feelings on the concreteness of the alliance in the fact of actual military action.
It's not my "thoughts or feelings" - it's how many guys with guns are actually going to show up. In the US, all of the GWoT veterans are telling the next generation that these wars started by Washington are not worth fighting therefore it's not worth signing up. Less than 20% of our youth are even eligible to serve for several reasons. On the European side, mandatory military service has been eliminated in the biggest NATO states like Germany, small percentages of the population of these states is willing to fight, and they've been relying on the US for defense for the past 70 years. The most-martial states are those closest to Russia.
 

VonMeister

Duke status
Apr 26, 2013
18,763
5,801
113
JOE BIDENS RAPE FINGER
Certainly seemed to be true when Yugoslavia broke up...materially speaking, USA did the heavy lifting, though on paper, NATO was involved.

I always figure that practically speaking, NATO was created to fight the last war (European theater) and pool resources for what became the Cold War.

[Cold War I ended, more or less when Soviet Union collapsed, so NATO worked? Seems like it to me. Cold War II started.....I don't know, when China and Russia started cooperating a little more?]

Guess I would use different word than "fictional" to describe NATO but I get that you are using it to describe your thoughts/feelings on the concreteness of the alliance in the fact of actual military action.
NATO did work. The Soviet Union believed that collectively if they attacked one, that all would respond and as a deterrent it was successful.. I believe that was true....but today the economic interests of several NATO countries will prevent them from going against Russia or China.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PRCD

Mr Doof

Duke status
Jan 23, 2002
23,368
5,584
113
San Francisco, CA
Charles de Gaulle took France out of NATO...
No, he didn't.

Source <---not Wikipedia source

"Many people think that French President Charles de Gaulle took his country out of NATO in 1966 when he demanded that all military headquarters and installations not under French command depart French territory by 1967, but this is not the case.

What France did was withdraw from NATO's integrated military command structure – thus French personnel were no longer assigned to the staffs of headquarters in the NATO command structure and French units were not placed under NATO command, but France remained an active member of the Alliance itself and French personnel continued to serve at NATO's political headquarters in Brussels as well as in liaison offices at the other military headquarters.

The French armed forces also worked out secret arrangements for cooperation with NATO in wartime, so the Allies were sure that they could count on France in the event of a crisis or war."




(and secretly hated the US).
Debatable but within bounds of subjective analysis. Can't find anything clearcut in a few seconds of searching about him hating the USA.

CDG wanted France to be known as a global power on par with the US....always romanticizing about the days that they were.
Seems reasonable to me.

Source

" De Gaulle protested at the strong role of the United States in NATO. He considered the "special relationship" between the U.S. and the UK to be too close and too detrimental to the French role in Europe. The existing NATO situation gave the United States a veto power a nuclear weapons and thus prevented France from having a fully independent nuclear force of its own. In a memorandum sent to President Dwight D. Eisenhower and Prime Minister Harold Macmillan on 17 September 1958, he proposed a tripartite directorate that would put France on an equal footing with them. He also wanted NATO's coverage to expand to include French Algeria, where France was waging a counter-insurgency and sought NATO assistance.[31] "

They are not a member no matter what Wikipedia claims.
What source would you accept as valid?

Maybe "member" is a fungible term though.
Paying dues and signing up doesn't make it seem fungible to me. For certain, all members will try to game the alliance in their best interests, which could lead to the difference of opinion between being an active member versus one that is "on paper only". So maybe France is better considered to be "a less than optimal member of NATO"?


Germany is clearly a card carrying member of NATO but functionally not a member in the least...where France is absolutely committed to the security of Europe and the most reliable global ally of the western world..more-so than the US today.
Germany sending helmets to Ukraine when others are sending defensive weaponry is, well to me at least, worth a :poke:

Am hoping the Macron-Putin meeting this week calms the Ukraine situation...thanks France. USA seems to be a bit too comfy with the stick for the last 20 yrs.

NATO did work. The Soviet Union believed that collectively if they attacked one, that all would respond and as a deterrent it was successful.. I believe that was true....
Agree.

....but today the economic interests of several NATO countries will prevent them from going against Russia or China.
Mostly think this is true, at present....hence the diplomacy thing and talking back of the situation by various countries that are not the USA or UK. (If things get hot, yeah, then you get to stand one the side of the fence of your choosing and hope your friends are all agreeing what fence that is.)

Certainly seems to me that this is what Russia is thinking or testing out with Ukraine, and would think same applies with China with Taiwan.
 
Last edited: