European Tribune

Display:
I don't know off-hand if NATO member countries have ever faced a civil war during its existence

Well, Turkey (PKK vs. the Turkish state).

I know you are arguing that without the safety net of NATO russophobia could explode.

No. I'm exploring the hypothetical that without the perceived safety net and after going anti-EU and far-right-wing Russophobia would explode.

So if Russians began being massacred by Poles

That's hardly likely. I was talking about the Baltics, and it doesn't have to be a massacre for Russia to consider doing something -- there could be further legal restrictions on citizenship rights, pushing people to move to Russia, and yes random hate crimes.

They'd probably play the energy card too.

Hmmm, that figures. But then I can imagine further escalation if the USA or the EU or private firms do emergency supply.

And I can't imagine the US intervening unilaterally on behalf of those commiting the ethnic violence.  Well, unless they managed to convince America the Russians were Al Quaeda.

Ah, but it's much easier, don't be forgetful. Just think of Kosovo, think of the Krajinas in Croatia. In 1995, the US DID support the ethnic cleansers. They have to convince the public that The Russians Started It, and then it's just.

Also, what about 'intervening' already before the conflict, by establishing bases?

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Fri Apr 4th, 2008 at 02:18:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, Turkey (PKK vs. the Turkish state).

You'll have to explain more.  If I wasn't aware of it, I still don't know what NATO's policy is.

No. I'm exploring the hypothetical that without the perceived safety net and after going anti-EU and far-right-wing Russophobia would explode.

Right. Got it.

I was talking about the Baltics, and it doesn't have to be a massacre for Russia to consider doing something -- there could be further legal restrictions on citizenship rights, pushing people to move to Russia, and yes random hate crimes.

I'm sorry, that was unclear.  Still the Baltics are also in the EU & Nato.  You brought up civil war.  I think it takes more than a hate crime to start that.  You keep saying Russia would do something about some because of something.  Vague enough for me to not be able to read your mind and yet be wrong  ... heh.

Ah, but it's much easier, don't be forgetful. Just think of Kosovo, think of the Krajinas in Croatia. In 1995, the US DID support the ethnic cleansers. They have to convince the public that The Russians Started It, and then it's just.

Wait, are we or aren't we talking about ethnic violence?  If you are talking about " legal restrictions on citizenship rights, pushing people to move to Russia, and yes random hate crimes" then how are they going to argue The Russians Started It?  I'm not saying we don't support ethnic cleansers.  I assumed we were talking about Poland (I see now we were not, sorry) because of Marek's comment.  That has different emotional connotations for us.  Nothing is impossible.  But while I bet most Americans -like me- know nothing about the Krajinas, you say "ethnic cleansing in Poland" and everyone's on the same page.  It's unconscionable.  Talking about a country of people who go to Auschwitz for pilgrimages...  

Also, what about 'intervening' already before the conflict, by establishing bases?

That wasn't what you asked.  

Hey, what about NOT being Russophobic!  Look at all of the bazillion hypothetical problems THAT would solve!

Come, my friends, 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world.

by poemless on Fri Apr 4th, 2008 at 02:38:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Hey, what about NOT being Russophobic!  Look at all of the bazillion hypothetical problems THAT would solve!

You mean if the pink alien unicorns would not be Russophobic? Yes, that is an interesting scenario.

Or maybe you meant our political leaders, but then it just gets so whacky unrealistic we could just as well assuming them to start acting in the common good.

by A swedish kind of death on Sat Apr 5th, 2008 at 07:32:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
This entire conversation has made me more opposed to NATO.  If a country's argument for NATO being necessary is "Left to our own devices we can't behave responsibly and our irresponsible behavoir will piss off Russia, making it a threat, so we need NATO to protect us" it is offensively stupid.

I know that is not really what any country is saying.

But it seems to be the argument left standing in this game of "what would happen if NATO dissolved."

Come, my friends, 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world.

by poemless on Fri Apr 4th, 2008 at 02:50:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The original issue was whether the Western European countries would face any downside from forcing the dissolution of NATO. My argument is that they would be virtually certain to face greater difficulty in pursuing EU integration and that there is a small but real chance of causing the political destabilization of some EU members. You seem to be saying that the fears that would lead to those negative consequences are irrational and should therefore be ignored. I agree they're irrational, but so what? It won't make them go away. And therefore it is only sensible to take them into account.  

PS, you seem to be focussed on this war thing, but that's not what I was talking about.

by MarekNYC on Fri Apr 4th, 2008 at 03:08:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Nato is a military alliance.  It is a "war thing."

Come, my friends, 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world.
by poemless on Fri Apr 4th, 2008 at 03:24:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Recent Diaries
Debates
Campaigns
Occasional Series