What is NATO for then?

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
Herainestold
After Pie
Posts: 2029
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2019 1:23 pm

Re: What is NATO for then?

Post by Herainestold » Sat Dec 03, 2022 7:52 pm

Chris Preston wrote:
Sat Dec 03, 2022 4:25 am
Herainestold wrote:
Sat Dec 03, 2022 2:58 am
Some feel more comfortable next to Russia (Georgia, Kazakhstan, etc.)
LOL.

This would be the reason why Georgia has been trying to join NATO for the last 20 years.
The current Georgian government is pro Russia and looks to Russia for security guarantees.
Masking forever
Putin is a monster.
Russian socialism will rise again

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 10137
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: What is NATO for then?

Post by Bird on a Fire » Sat Dec 03, 2022 8:52 pm

TopBadger wrote:
Fri Dec 02, 2022 2:00 pm
Woodchopper wrote:
Fri Dec 02, 2022 1:52 pm
EACLucifer wrote:
Fri Dec 02, 2022 11:44 am
NATO exists for the mutual defence of its members. Happy to help.
Defence is a pretty vague term. Worth noting that many of NATO's activities have been much wider than defending its members from attack.

For example past missions like the 2011 air campaign against Qaddafi forces in Libya, counter-piracy operations off the Horn of Africa, of the deployment of troops to North Macedonia (as it was called then). Similarly there are current missions like the force deployed in Kosovo, support for the African Union peacekeeping mission in Somalia, or the NATO training mission in Iraq.

People can read the full list here: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_52060.htm
How the f.ck is defence a vague term?

No doubt NATO's capabilities (primarily co-ordination of multinational military forces) have been used at the behest of it's members and the UN for things other than defence... but what it exists for is crystal clear.
Not really.

It may have been set up generations ago for "defence", but if it's never used for typical defence (ie being invaded a la Ukraine) and is used for all sorts of other, non-defensive things (eg invading Afghanistan, bombing Libya, etc), it seems a fair question as to whether its de facto purpose has drifted.

The question in the OP wasn't "Why was NATO started in 1949?" it was "What is NATO for in 2022?" Calling the question dumb doesn't actually distract from your inability to answer it convincingly.

Please try and square your answers with the recent posts on the Invasion of Ukraine thread, where it was claimed that NATO are not interested in Ukraine and have not played a role in countering the Russian invasion there.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: What is NATO for then?

Post by EACLucifer » Sat Dec 03, 2022 8:59 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Sat Dec 03, 2022 8:52 pm
Please try and square your answers with the recent posts on the Invasion of Ukraine thread, where it was claimed that NATO are not interested in Ukraine and have not played a role in countering the Russian invasion there.
The principle argument there was that Ukraine is not a proxy of NATO. Which it isn't. That doesn't require NATO to have no interest, it requires the Ukrainian side to be in charge of their own efforts and doing what they are doing for their own reasons. NATO is coordinating aid, but they are not directing Ukrainian efforts.

This was greatly confused by the fact that Plodder doesn't actually know what he is talking about re: proxy wars or the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but that didn't stop him going on and on and on and on and on about it, even to the point of reprodusing nonsense straight from Kremlin propaganda.

NATO's interest as an organisation, incidentally, is what it always was - mutual defence. If Ukraine stop Russia, then it won't be NATO members like Poland or the Baltic states next. As Ukrainians are extremely united behind the idea of resisting and expelling the Russians, their interests naturally align.

As for the nonsense claim that Russia was motivated by fear of NATO, if that were the case they wouldn't be stripping missile defences from the Finnish border to send to Ukraine just as Finland joins NATO.

User avatar
TopBadger
Catbabel
Posts: 781
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:33 pm
Location: Halfway up

Re: What is NATO for then?

Post by TopBadger » Sat Dec 03, 2022 9:59 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Sat Dec 03, 2022 8:52 pm

Not really.

It may have been set up generations ago for "defence", but if it's never used for typical defence (ie being invaded a la Ukraine) and is used for all sorts of other, non-defensive things (eg invading Afghanistan, bombing Libya, etc), it seems a fair question as to whether its de facto purpose has drifted.

The question in the OP wasn't "Why was NATO started in 1949?" it was "What is NATO for in 2022?" Calling the question dumb doesn't actually distract from your inability to answer it convincingly.

Please try and square your answers with the recent posts on the Invasion of Ukraine thread, where it was claimed that NATO are not interested in Ukraine and have not played a role in countering the Russian invasion there.
f.cking hell BoaF... you're not thick. Don't drop yourself to plodders level.

NATO still exists for what it was created for... mutual defence. That its never been used for its primary purpose but has been put to other good uses is great and in no way detracts what it still exists for.

Somewhat similarly, fire extinguishers exist for putting out fires. I've put fire extinguishers to good use (I use the term flippantly) as door stops, and as a wicket for corridor cricket and have never used one to actually put out a fire... but that DOES NOT CHANGE WHAT FIRE EXTINGUISHERS EXIST FOR!
You can't polish a turd...
unless its Lion or Osterich poo... http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/mythbus ... -turd.html

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 10137
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: What is NATO for then?

Post by Bird on a Fire » Sat Dec 03, 2022 10:22 pm

These are better answers, thanks. I guess the issue is one of potential mission creep - countries could set up a defensive military organisation but then use it to coordinate other stuff outwith its remit. I'd certainly consider both the invasion of Afghanistan and the bombing of Libya less cut-and-dry defensive than the IMHO entirely justified (and arguably underwhelming) provision of aid to Ukraine.

Though I can also see why raising the issue now looks like a specific criticism of the Ukraine situation rather than the other stuff.

But a working answer might be, "primarily a defensive organisation, with the original intention of defending against Russian invasion of member states, but with a wider purview including assisting defense of allied states and coordinating other military and humanitarian activities where members'/allies ' interests align"?

Also while chuffed at being considered "not thick" I'd say that I think plodder is getting a bit too much abuse here. Doubling down on a flabby definition of "proxy war" wasn't helpful, though. But maybe we can act like grownups? I really don't think he's deliberately pushing a pro-kremlin line and I don't like all the yelling :(
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: What is NATO for then?

Post by EACLucifer » Sat Dec 03, 2022 10:30 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Sat Dec 03, 2022 10:22 pm
Also while chuffed at being considered "not thick" I'd say that I think plodder is getting a bit too much abuse here. Doubling down on a flabby definition of "proxy war" wasn't helpful, though. But maybe we can act like grownups?
I tried that with him. I tried acting like he was behaving in good faith. What I got in return was abuse. And his behaviour on the subject of arms to Ukraine and those who know about them or talk about them was extremely offensive. I suggest you direct this comment at him.

I really don't think he's deliberately pushing a pro-kremlin line
And yet nonetheless he did exactly that. Of course it's possible he's doing that because he's decided he's superior to everyone who actually knows anything about what's going on rather than support for the Kremlin. I'd say that's the most likely outcome. But if he were to read and learn rather than make vile accusations to wind people up, then maybe he wouldn't be quoting Kremlin lines verbatim. Or he could just drop the subject and talk about other things if he is incapable of acting like a grown bl..dy adult on this issue.
I don't like all the yelling :(
No. I don't either. I didn't ask to have a troll making extremely offensive comments at me when I'm trying to help people understand horrible events.

User avatar
TopBadger
Catbabel
Posts: 781
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:33 pm
Location: Halfway up

Re: What is NATO for then?

Post by TopBadger » Sun Dec 04, 2022 7:13 am

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Sat Dec 03, 2022 10:22 pm
I don't like all the yelling :(
Apologies...
You can't polish a turd...
unless its Lion or Osterich poo... http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/mythbus ... -turd.html

User avatar
Formerly AvP
Stargoon
Posts: 119
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2022 6:42 pm

Re: What is NATO for then?

Post by Formerly AvP » Sun Dec 04, 2022 6:55 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Sat Dec 03, 2022 10:22 pm
Doubling down on a flabby definition of "proxy war" wasn't helpful, though. But maybe we can act like grownups? I really don't think he's deliberately pushing a pro-kremlin line and I don't like all the yelling :(


I expect this will not be particularly helpful or interesting, but, despite that, I thought I'd summarise what I think 'proxy war' means.

Let's imagine two countries, A and B, in conflict. Country C, for various reasons, decides to support country A. These reasons might be moral or self-interested. Under what conditions would we describe the conflict as a proxy war?

I think the conditions are (i) that country A does not have a strong desire to engage in conflict with country B and (ii) country C does have a strong desire to engage in conflict with country B.

We can apply this reasoning to the U.S. providing support to the UK during WW2 between 1939 and late 1941. I do not think this can in any way be described as a 'proxy war' by the U.S. Yes, the U.S. perceived both moral and practical reasons for supporting the U.K. But the U.K was fighting anyway, for very good reasons of its own (not meeting condition i) and the U.S. would undoubtedly have preferred to avoid conflict at all (not meeting condition ii).

If we apply this logic to the conflict in Ukraine, then NATO and other (e.g. Australian) support for Ukraine does not meet ether condition (i) or condition (ii). Of course, there is a spectrum for both conditions, but to describe the Ukraine conflict as a proxy war seems to me to be counter-factual, even irrational.

If, to this counter-factual aspect of calling it a proxy war, we add the sheer horror of the Russian tactics of rape, torture, murder and attacks on civilians, to their overt invasion of the territory of an independent nation, plus the inhumanity of their treatment of their own, I can understand why some might feel sufficiently badly about that nomenclature to write with strong negative energy. It is of course, tempting to describe strongly worded content as 'yelling', but sometimes there must be circumstances in which strongly worded language is appropriate.

I am not ascribing motivation to Plodder for his, I think, markedly counter-factual position, because I cannot tell what his/her/their motivation is.
Nor do I think I am 'yelling' but I can understand the strong feelings of those who are accused of this. In fact, I do not think calling it 'yelling' is appropriate language. I do not think strong criticism of extremely cruel regimes is well characterised by this negative terminology.

It is possible that my view is influenced by the fact that I live partly in the U.K. but also, with my partner, in Poland for much of the year. The current situation seems clear to Polish people for both current and historical reasons, and does not seem like a semantic debate in any way. Even an otherwise illiberal Polish government has unequivocally recognised this, and provides considerable support to Ukraine.
Was Allo V Psycho, but when my laptop died, I lost all the info on it...

User avatar
bob sterman
Dorkwood
Posts: 1123
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:25 pm
Location: Location Location

Re: What is NATO for then?

Post by bob sterman » Sun Dec 04, 2022 10:08 pm

There is serious debate out there on the "proxy war" question.

Some academics say it is...

The US isn’t at war with Russia, technically – but its support for Ukraine offers a classic case of a proxy war
https://theconversation.com/the-us-isnt ... war-192064

The NATO vs. Russia Proxy War in Ukraine Could Become a Real War
https://www.cato.org/commentary/nato-vs ... e-real-war

Russia Is Right: The U.S. Is Waging a Proxy War in Ukraine
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/artic ... -proxy-war

Some say it isn't...

Is the war in Ukraine a proxy conflict?
https://www.kcl.ac.uk/is-the-war-in-ukr ... y-conflict

Why Ukraine isn’t a ‘proxy war’ (yet?)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... y-war-yet/

It depends on who you ask...
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 73399.html

User avatar
dyqik
Princess POW
Posts: 7524
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: What is NATO for then?

Post by dyqik » Sun Dec 04, 2022 11:18 pm

Academics writing partisan political papers isn't exactly evidence of anything, unless you do a proper literature search and show that there's actual engagement within the wider field.

User avatar
jimbob
Light of Blast
Posts: 5276
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:04 pm
Location: High Peak/Manchester

Re: What is NATO for then?

Post by jimbob » Mon Dec 05, 2022 12:14 am

dyqik wrote:
Sun Dec 04, 2022 11:18 pm
Academics writing partisan political papers isn't exactly evidence of anything, unless you do a proper literature search and show that there's actual engagement within the wider field.
Yup.

And it still doesn't explain how a definition of "proxy war" is useful if it is so wide as to supplying any belligerent for reasons apart from purely commercial ones.
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation

Millennie Al
After Pie
Posts: 1621
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:02 am

Re: What is NATO for then?

Post by Millennie Al » Mon Dec 05, 2022 12:21 am

Herainestold wrote:
Sat Dec 03, 2022 2:58 am
If Russia had buffer states against NATO, it would not feel threatened.
Like Ukraine? Which it is now driving into NATO by its invasion? Funny way to want buffer states.

User avatar
bob sterman
Dorkwood
Posts: 1123
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:25 pm
Location: Location Location

Re: What is NATO for then?

Post by bob sterman » Mon Dec 05, 2022 6:39 am

dyqik wrote:
Sun Dec 04, 2022 11:18 pm
Academics writing partisan political papers isn't exactly evidence of anything, unless you do a proper literature search and show that there's actual engagement within the wider field.
I think it's evidence that there is serious debate - i.e. that neither view is necessarily worthy of ridicule.

User avatar
dyqik
Princess POW
Posts: 7524
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: What is NATO for then?

Post by dyqik » Mon Dec 05, 2022 10:54 am

bob sterman wrote:
Mon Dec 05, 2022 6:39 am
dyqik wrote:
Sun Dec 04, 2022 11:18 pm
Academics writing partisan political papers isn't exactly evidence of anything, unless you do a proper literature search and show that there's actual engagement within the wider field.
I think it's evidence that there is serious debate - i.e. that neither view is necessarily worthy of ridicule.
No, it specifically isn't that, unless the papers are referring to other papers taking the opposite view, and there are papers referring to them that take the opposite view, or that support it with further critical thought and evidence.

Anyone can write a paper or state a claim. There being serious debate requires that people in the general area find the claim worthy of discussion or considered rebuttal. Remember, the majority of peer review happens after publication, not before.

User avatar
TopBadger
Catbabel
Posts: 781
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:33 pm
Location: Halfway up

Re: What is NATO for then?

Post by TopBadger » Mon Dec 05, 2022 11:10 am

bob sterman wrote:
Mon Dec 05, 2022 6:39 am
dyqik wrote:
Sun Dec 04, 2022 11:18 pm
Academics writing partisan political papers isn't exactly evidence of anything, unless you do a proper literature search and show that there's actual engagement within the wider field.
I think it's evidence that there is serious debate - i.e. that neither view is necessarily worthy of ridicule.
Ah - good old false equivalence... like when Minford is rolled out to support some hairbrained economic view that literally no other economist in the world believes is true.
You can't polish a turd...
unless its Lion or Osterich poo... http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/mythbus ... -turd.html

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 10137
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: What is NATO for then?

Post by Bird on a Fire » Mon Dec 05, 2022 12:27 pm

Good to see people dismissing academic perspectives without engaging with a word they've said. They must be thick Minfordesque kremlin-lovers.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.

User avatar
dyqik
Princess POW
Posts: 7524
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: What is NATO for then?

Post by dyqik » Mon Dec 05, 2022 12:30 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Mon Dec 05, 2022 12:27 pm
Good to see people dismissing academic perspectives without engaging with a word they've said. They must be thick Minfordesque kremlin-lovers.
No one here has dismissed academic perspectives at all. They've dismissed the argument that the existence of newspaper and news website opinion pieces means that there is genuine debate.

I can produce a similar list showing that there is genuine debate about the cause of climate change, the safety of MMR and CoVID vaccines, and the existence of the Big Bang.

User avatar
bob sterman
Dorkwood
Posts: 1123
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:25 pm
Location: Location Location

Re: What is NATO for then?

Post by bob sterman » Tue Dec 06, 2022 6:29 am

dyqik wrote:
Mon Dec 05, 2022 12:30 pm
Bird on a Fire wrote:
Mon Dec 05, 2022 12:27 pm
Good to see people dismissing academic perspectives without engaging with a word they've said. They must be thick Minfordesque kremlin-lovers.
No one here has dismissed academic perspectives at all. They've dismissed the argument that the existence of newspaper and news website opinion pieces means that there is genuine debate.

I can produce a similar list showing that there is genuine debate about the cause of climate change, the safety of MMR and CoVID vaccines, and the existence of the Big Bang.
The discussion is about whether something is, or is not, a "proxy war" - a concept which does not have a universally agreed on, objective definition. The concept has been defined and developed by political scientists, historians, politicians etc. So debate among these people is of course relevant.

Analogies with debates about objectively verifiable physical phenomena are not really apt.

User avatar
bjn
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2915
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:58 pm
Location: London

Re: What is NATO for then?

Post by bjn » Tue Dec 06, 2022 8:30 am

How about we stop using the term proxy war if it is so vague that it can mean anything? We are debating semantics of a vague term as opposed to what NATO is for. Stop it.

User avatar
bob sterman
Dorkwood
Posts: 1123
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:25 pm
Location: Location Location

Re: What is NATO for then?

Post by bob sterman » Tue Dec 06, 2022 10:07 am

bjn wrote:
Tue Dec 06, 2022 8:30 am
How about we stop using the term proxy war if it is so vague that it can mean anything? We are debating semantics of a vague term as opposed to what NATO is for. Stop it.
OK - a good starting point would be to look at what NATO says it is for at this point in the 21st Century...

https://www.nato.int/strategic-concept/
Purpose and Principles

1. NATO is determined to safeguard the freedom and security of Allies. Its key purpose and greatest responsibility is to ensure our collective defence, against all threats, from all directions. We are a defensive Alliance.

2. The transatlantic bond between our nations is indispensable to our security. We are bound together by common values: individual liberty, human rights, democracy and the rule of law. We remain firmly committed to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty.

3. NATO is the unique, essential and indispensable transatlantic forum to consult, coordinate and act on all matters related to our individual and collective security. We will strengthen our Alliance based on our indivisible security, solidarity, and ironclad commitment to defend each other, as enshrined in Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. Our ability to deter and defend is the backbone of that commitment.

4. NATO will continue to fulfil three core tasks: deterrence and defence; crisis prevention and management; and cooperative security. These are complementary to ensure the collective defence and security of all Allies.

5. We will enhance our individual and collective resilience and technological edge. These efforts are critical to fulfil the Alliance’s core tasks. We will promote good governance and integrate climate change, human security and the Women, Peace and Security agenda across all our tasks. We will continue to advance gender equality as a reflection of our values.

noggins
Snowbonk
Posts: 569
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 1:30 pm

Re: What is NATO for then?

Post by noggins » Tue Dec 06, 2022 11:18 am

NATO is a deal whereby the USA pulls European military chestnuts out of the fire and in return Europe gives political support to other US adventures .

noggins
Snowbonk
Posts: 569
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 1:30 pm

Re: What is NATO for then?

Post by noggins » Tue Dec 06, 2022 11:20 am

NB im totally in favour of supporting Ukraine, the conspiraceh theorists are idiots - what the West want is a Russian regime that keeps the oil and gas flowing without poking our liberal sensibilities too severely.

User avatar
dyqik
Princess POW
Posts: 7524
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: What is NATO for then?

Post by dyqik » Tue Dec 06, 2022 11:46 am

noggins wrote:
Tue Dec 06, 2022 11:18 am
NATO is a deal whereby the USA pulls European military chestnuts out of the fire and in return Europe gives political support to other US adventures .
This is false. Some European countries may support some US misadventures, but NATO generally does not.

Countries can do things with other NATO countries without it being a NATO thing.

User avatar
dyqik
Princess POW
Posts: 7524
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: What is NATO for then?

Post by dyqik » Tue Dec 06, 2022 11:51 am

bob sterman wrote:
Tue Dec 06, 2022 6:29 am
dyqik wrote:
Mon Dec 05, 2022 12:30 pm
Bird on a Fire wrote:
Mon Dec 05, 2022 12:27 pm
Good to see people dismissing academic perspectives without engaging with a word they've said. They must be thick Minfordesque kremlin-lovers.
No one here has dismissed academic perspectives at all. They've dismissed the argument that the existence of newspaper and news website opinion pieces means that there is genuine debate.

I can produce a similar list showing that there is genuine debate about the cause of climate change, the safety of MMR and CoVID vaccines, and the existence of the Big Bang.
The discussion is about whether something is, or is not, a "proxy war" - a concept which does not have a universally agreed on, objective definition. The concept has been defined and developed by political scientists, historians, politicians etc. So debate among these people is of course relevant.

Analogies with debates about objectively verifiable physical phenomena are not really apt.
Even verificable physical phenomena can be proven debatable with your method, so of course terms where you can more easily play semantic pigeon chess can as well.

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 10137
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: What is NATO for then?

Post by Bird on a Fire » Tue Dec 06, 2022 12:57 pm

dyqik wrote:
Tue Dec 06, 2022 11:46 am
noggins wrote:
Tue Dec 06, 2022 11:18 am
NATO is a deal whereby the USA pulls European military chestnuts out of the fire and in return Europe gives political support to other US adventures .
This is false. Some European countries may support some US misadventures, but NATO generally does not.

Countries can do things with other NATO countries without it being a NATO thing.
This is getting a bit "semantic" again, and not necessarily usefully. The examples of Afghanistan and Libya have already been given, for instance, and it seems fair to describe both as NATO things.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.

Post Reply