"Ex US officers push for NATO expansion in Black Sea" Topic

link

Proving they're either stupid or stuck in 2000, ex-US military promote expansion of NATO into Georgia and Ukraine. The article literally ignores the events of the last 15 years. It fails to understand changes in dynamics.

It should be noted that Russia will risk WWIII to stop NATO expansion in Black Sea and that it has already initiated conflict in both Georgia and Ukraine when they tried to get closer to NATO!

Any expansion into Georgia is insane simply due to geography – Georgia would de difficult to defend. NATO would be reliant on land and air routes through Turkey (itself an increasingly unstable member). Not to mention Russian troops are already in Georgia!

Speaking of Turkey bizarrely these officers mention nothing of trying to stabilise Turkish relations with NATO. Instead they try to portray Turkey as a victim of Russian aggression – clearly marijuana and LSD are popular amongst ex-US military officers.

US might want to reconsider what kind of education it is giving its military officers.

And if this is the kind of thinking that is happening within US defence and foreign policy circles, little wonder the US is losing relevance and others are growing in power.

Obvious propaganda put out by some retired General who now works at a globalist military-industrial complex think tank. These guys are non-stop and won't be happy until the USA is once again involved in another foreign conflict.

This is the kind of overreach that is killing NATO.

NATO can have a role, but it's not in expanding into regions it does not belong.

Personally, I'd like to see an ETO – European Treaty Organisation which excludes though remains on friendly terms with the US. Basically – kick the US out of NATO and then have the discussion about how to defend Europe without over reliance on the US. US bases out or make them pay rent.

Agreed, to a point…in the time before Russia invaded Georgia I was the chief of staff to the EUCOM J2. We spoke several times about Russia's "near abroad" (a Russian term form their former states) and how it would be best to leave Russia's former states alone. We agreed the west would be better off with buffer states between them and Russia, and that pushing to expand NATO would only provoke the Russians, as we were trying to do with Georgia.

At the same time there were/are practical considerations, like how much easier Russia would be able to reinforce and fight along its borders, compared to the effort it would take the US to get across the Atlantic, and then across western Europe. (Unless we were able to hold ports in Poland, etc.)

Of course, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't diplomatically support the freedom of those independent states, but trying to bring them into NATO will, again, just provoke the Russians into action Are we willing to risk war with Russia over their former states?

However, these guys are correct in the need to insure NATO's ability to protect its eastern NATO members. If it can't provide a credible deterrent to Russia, then "why NATO?"

Obviously, I don't agree with their recommendation to bring Ukraine and Georgia into NATO; I don't think we should provoke a probably war with Russia.

As for your comment about "the kind of education" provided to US officers….There is no education that creates a single mind-thought for the military, and you don't want group think. We all get our education and use it as we will. Although we won't all agree with what these guys wrote, it's a valid discussion.

US bases out or make them pay rent.

Those bases cost the US taxpayers money, but are a financial boon to the local communities in the host country. I'd be glad for the US to close all those bases and bring our troops home. The host countries would be begging us to stay.

Yea, what's there that is in OUR national interest?

In today's interconnected world, European stability, and NATO allies, are in our national interest.

"Personally, I'd like to see an ETO – European Treaty Organisation which excludes though remains on friendly terms with the US. Basically – kick the US out of NATO and then have the discussion about how to defend Europe without over reliance on the US. US bases out or make them pay rent."

I think this would be disastrous for Europe. Under US leadership, and protection, the Europeans have essentially disarmed. It was only US pressure that brought them up to where they are now. A European only defense group would be a paper tiger with no military worth talking about. They'd be ripe for invasion. Perhaps a repeat of 1939.

As to why it's in our interest to incorporate former Soviet countries into NATO. When the Russian Empire fell apart in 1916 many countries declared independence. Within 20 years the Soviet Union had brought them all back into the fold, by force. Putin is determined to rebuild the Russian Empire and keeping that from happening would be in our best interest. In my opinion.

Dn Jackson is correct. Germany has 254 tanks, that's fewer than the UAE. And how many of those are actually ready to roll off to war in three hours notice? Not many I suspect. A European NATO without the USA, would be worse than useless, because they would have the illusion of power without any actual power. They would also tell themselves that the US would still defend them if they got into trouble. So yes, it would be 1939 all over again.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
Bunker Talk blog

link

"Personally, I'd like to see an ETO – European Treaty Organization which excludes though remains on friendly terms with the US. Basically – kick the US out of NATO and then have the discussion about how to defend Europe without over reliance on the US. US bases out or make them pay rent."-Skarper

The ETO will not pay for it's own defense but I would dearly love for them to kick the USA out so we don't have to pay for their defense. Good luck with that conversation, the UK would be the big dog (well medium sized dog) in a pack of small nuetered dogs with no teeth. As far as charging the USA rent for the bases we should charge Europe for protection for failing to uphold their NATO obligations. Good luck with the base denial gambit…

Is it fair or appropriate to rely on the US to defend Europe? I think not. Does the US defend Europe thru NATO – highly doubtful.

NATO is a doddering septuagenarian that has outlived it's usefulness.

As for the bases they no longer serve to protect Europe. Maybe they did in the Cold War, but now the bases are used to project US power into parts of the globe they could not readily reach otherwise.

Europeans don't want them – US citizens don't want them to persist so why do they? Inertia?

Sadly – the easiest option is as always to do nothing and 'kick the can down the road'.

The Okinawans seem to want their bases gone even more than the Europeans do.

If the US tried to charge Europe for protection most [I'd say all] would simple refuse and if pressed ask the US to leave.

"Does the US defend Europe thru NATO – highly doubtful."

I believe our continuing presence in Europe is a deterrent to the Russians. Are the Russians still a threat or is it just wishful thinking they were not so we will leave?

"As for the bases they no longer serve to protect Europe. Maybe they did in the Cold War, but now the bases are used to project US power into parts of the globe they could not readily reach otherwise."

Now you have stated something I would like to explore! If we use our bases to project military operations from European soil then it would appear the ETO sanctioned our military operations even if they are not in ETO's interest or are they? Does the ETO act as a silent partner and endorse what we do behind closed doors? Another possibility is the USA a bully strong arming our allies into letting us use our bases to project power?

"If the US tried to charge Europe for protection most [I'd say all] would simple refuse and if pressed ask the US to leave."

Then the ETO would get to have the conversation you want to have, it would cost them either way. It seems the cheap alternative is to let the USA use bases to project power while Europe spends its money on bloated social welfare programs instead of its own defense.

Russia poses a threat to NATO countries ?!
It's nice that someone is afraid of Russia with such a balance of power)))
Only, in my opinion, it is Russia that should be feared – it is NATO that moves closer to the Russian borders year after year. We can assume a new 1941. And now the distance to Moscow is much closer.

The table is not Russian – it was compiled by a Ukrainian news channel. For some reason I did not find such infographics in English)))

And if we compare the production capacities of Russia and NATO and their military budgets, then all this reasoning about threats becomes simply ridiculous.
In my opinion, Russia is defending itself by not allowing NATO infrastructure to reach its own borders.

@Cuprum2

I would be interested to know how much of the NATO military listed belongs to the USA. I would also be interested to find out how much is actually stationed in Europe. I would also like to see what the European's bring to the table in functional and not obsolete systems.

Forgive your former republics and Warsaw Pact countries but years of enslavement have given them PTSD. Russia did not help their PTSD with the Georgia and Ukrainian adventures. Putin has alluded he would like to reconstitute the former Russian empire giving its neighbors more nightmares. I can understand their desire to enter NATO. However we should not provoke the Russian people either I understand the historical trauma of the German invasion and 22 million dead…

Turkey appears to have rabies and is lashing out at everyone including NATO allies… I hope they do not drag us into a direct confrontation with Russia.

Cuprum, according to former US Defence Secretary Robert Gates US contributes 75% of all capabilities in NATO.

So without US,Russian military is far closer to Europe and in many cases eclipses European capability.

- Well, regardless of what these nice countries say, "enslavement" is hardly the right word. All of Baltic republics lived better, than Russia, and Warsaw pact countries lived better than any of USSR republics. It was years ago. but we had some discussions on enormous sufferings, claimed by Baltic states leaders, while 95% of them were happily integrated in Soviet nomenclature and CPSU, and never tried to oppose the system up when it was possible without any problems. All of them jumped into NATO's embrace before cases with Georgia and Ukraine (and it wasn't Russia, who started it in Georgia)
One of the pretexts of Winter war was the border too close to Leningrad. Now, it is also close enough from Estonia to feel comfortable.

Any new state is built on the denial of the state in which it was previously – let us, for example, recall the United States and Great Britain. This is natural and understandable.
But I don't understand why the new states had to join an openly anti-Russian military bloc, created in a completely different world situation? Look at the Russian army of the 90s, which once lost a war to one of its own republics (Chechnya)!))) They were afraid of this country when they joined NATO? But in many ways it was NATO's advance towards Russia's borders that provoked Russia's response. Imagine that tomorrow Mexico will enter into a military alliance with Russia or China. How do you feel about this fact?
As for the outdated weapons in Eurole, it's also funny))) It can be assumed that Russia has much more advanced weapons. And especially had it in the 90s)))
You know little about what the former citizens of the USSR of Russian (and not only) nationalities experienced during the collapse of the USSR. These were millions of refugees who abandoned their property and were forced to flee to Russia. Thousands of them have been killed or are missing. Other interethnic relations (for example, Armenian-Azerbaijani) sharply deteriorated. Military clashes and even full-fledged wars broke out on many outskirts of the former USSR. The fact that Russia has troops in many regions of the former USSR are truly peacekeeping forces that separate the parties to the calmed conflicts. As soon as the Russians leave there, a new war will begin. There will be thousands, maybe tens and hundreds of thousands killed. Do you want this?
And all these wars will be on our borders. Millions of new refugees will again go to Russia. We don't need this.
And yes, naturally we are pursuing our own interests there. Why not?
I don't understand why the United States should be considered separate from NATO. Russia has the longest borders in the world and they also need to be protected (at least from the same China, which is no friend to anyone). All these Russian troops will never be deployed on the same border. Even during World War II, there was a huge Soviet group in the East …
But personally, I am ready to say thank you to NATO – you made our bourgeoisie, who were stunned in the 90s from the gigantic looted wealth, to tear their asses off their soft chairs and deal with the country's defense. And where you need to build armed forces, you will have to raise science and industry. The bourgeoisie will leave, but the strength will remain)))

Contemporary Russia is not the Soviet Union in much the same way that contemporary Germany is not the Third Reich. The Soviet Union presented a real threat to the free world for both military and ideological reasons. Ideologically speaking, at worst, contemporary Russia presents a threat no greater than Imperial Russia (I am not saying that contemporary Russia has the same ideology as Imperial Russia, I am just saying that at worst the level of ideological threat that contemporary Russia presents to the West is no greater than that of Imperial Russia). Militarily speaking (at least in terms of conventional weapons) contemporary Russia has enough trouble holding itself together, and in no way presents the offensive threat that the Soviet Union possessed. As a point of comparison, the Population of Russia is far smaller than either Bangladesh or Nigeria (and unlike either of those countries, the Russian population is in decline). China presents a far more dangerous threat to both the US (and the West in general) and Russia than either of these two powers presents to the other. Furthermore, ideologically speaking the US (and the West in general) faces more of a threat from Marxists from within its own society, than it does Marxism from Russia.

NATO expansion to Russia's near-abroad stemmed from the post-CW arrogance that the west had won and "the end of history" (per Francis Fukuyama) had occurred. Russia never became satisfied with the resulting power balance (i.e. its place at the European table), which led to Putin's current ambitions of empire labeled "Eurasianism" in foreign policy circles. Scholars today still debate on whether or not the US made promises to Russia that NATO would not expand beyond a unified Germany in the 1990's:

link

It doesn't matter anymore. What's done is done. Trust between Russia and the West – is undermined.
West repeated the same mistake that once he committed against Germany. But the pendulum necessarily swing in the opposite direction, which we now see. Russia sincerely wanted to become part of the Western world, but it was pushed away. They did not want to see her as an equal and wanted to punish her for their own fears of the USSR. Now we all have the result that it led to.

NATO has also been a very convenient reason for neo-liberalism to spread and stay.

Perpetuating enemies in the East has advantages.

The game of alliances is not that simple: US greed money and its political relay (in total disconnection to most US citizens) has displayed predatory behaviors in EU economies to such an extent that warming up relationships with Russia on the side of the so called "rich" European countries starts to make sense.

If you push too much, they start to look for less imposing allies.

It is a very interesting topic actually how they make you side to one block or another with all the accompanying hidden agendas and effects they never put in the open.

Honestly, it is not all black and white. It's called Politics and Geo-strategy while they rattle the swords, convince us to wear uniforms in the name of Freedom, and never quite show the other side of the coin.

Fanatik,

Agreed – much like the emergence of Sunni terrorism (fostered during war in Afghanistan by CIA) and China's expansion in the SC Sea (US completely ignoring it), the current situation with Russia is entirely the creation of the west.

And the west keeps compounding it by exploiting the situation eg Libya where it used a no fly zone to force regime change by acting as the CAS for various insurgent forces including Sunni Islamists. Same for Kosovo in 1999 – noting the US and large chunks of NATO now supports a breakaway region in what is a clear violation of international law and which has set precedents for other such conflicts (eg recent Armenia-Azerbaijan)

It didn't help that the US and US dominated IMF supported aid to a financially crippled Russia only on the provision Russia literally dismantle its economy (this has occurred elsewhere in East Europe and Asia, often with disastrous results, most recently in Greece).

IMF and US conditions ended up causing multiple crises in Russia and loss of industrial output (and thus jobs and wages – poverty in Russia went from 2% in 1991 to 40% in 1998). Russian GDP collapsed by 50% in period 1991-95.

In fact to get foreign aid, the Russians were required to maintain strict fiscal and monetary controls which resulted in millions of workers not being paid!

The US literally supported the birth of the Russian oligarchy by requiring rapid privatisation for Russia to get financial aid.

If it wasn't for the oil booms, Russia's economy would have been completely destroyed or it would have to revert to Communism to salvage it).

I suspect the former was the objective of the IMF and the US. This is standard operating procedure under neoliberal economics – destroy government influence over the economy and allow the rich and foreign corporations to strip the meat off the carcass.

Unlike in 1945 when the US was largely magnanimous towards defeated Japan and Germany, they were totally revelling in their victory at the end of the Cold War.

They viewed the 1990s as an opportunity to curb stomp Russia.

In many ways it was similar to the Morgenthau Plan which aimed to turn post-war Germany into an impoverished agrarian state. This plan was never implemented because cooler heads in the US government figured out destroying German industrial output would be disastrous.

However by 1991 any semblance of wisdom in US foreign policy circles had completely disappeared.

"Another possibility is the USA a bully strong arming our allies into letting us use our bases to project power?"

I'm going with 'no' on this option. After all, look what happened when we tried to use our bases in Turkey for the invasion of Iraq.

NATO did not push into eastern Europe….it was invited in because of the Russian threat.

1. 1953: Soviet forces suppress the anti-communist rebellion in East Germany.
2. 1956: Russia uses Warsaw Pact to suppress Hungarian revolution.
3. 1968: Russia uses Warsaw Pact to suppress revolution in Czechoslovakia.
4. 2007: Massive Russian cyber attack on Estonia.
5. 2008: Russia invades Georgia and occupies South Ossetia.
6. 2014: Russia invades Ukraine and occupies Crimea, Donbass region; Ukraine and Donbass are still occupied.

Is it any wonder Russia's neighbors are looking elsewhere for protection?

But, as I said earlier, short of providing diplomatic support to Ukraine and Georgia, it's unrealistic to bring them into NATO.

Stalin is a Georgian.
Khrushchev and Brezhnev are natives of Ukraine.
But is Russia to blame?))) The USSR consisted of 15 republics and each of them was ruled by their own communists and their representatives were part of the USSR government and even headed it.
As, incidentally, each of the "occupied" countries had their own communists and their own communist governments.
The USSR did not invade most of the countries of Eastern Europe – it came there as a winner, having previously defeated the military contingents of these countries, which participated in the attack on the USSR together with the Nazis.
In any case, the USSR was dissolved, and one of the first countries to declare their independence from the USSR was Russia)))

Russia voluntarily, exclusively of its own free will, withdrew its military contingents from the "occupied" countries.
Russia invaded Georgia after Georgia actually declared war on Russia. Ask any American how the United States should respond to a full-fledged armed attack by any country on the American peacekeepers.
In December 2008, the EU created an independent commission to investigate the circumstances that led to the conflict. In September 2009, the commission published a final report stating that Georgia was responsible for the outbreak of hostilities:
link

If Russia has occupied Crimea and Donbass, then, apparently, their residents are actively resisting the occupiers? Or do they consider the people who overthrew the lawfully elected president by these people as a result of a coup as usurpers of power and occupiers? If you are organizing a revolution in the country, be prepared for the fact that it will be followed by a civil war. Was Russia involved here? Undoubtedly. But wasn't the illegal coup openly supported by Western countries?
I wonder why the West does not support the "yellow vests" in France with the same zeal? Maybe it's time to support the struggle of the people with the French president-usurper?)))

NATO has long advanced hundreds of kilometers to the Russian borders. And it happened BEFORE all the MODERN events described by you. Nobody paid any attention to Russian indignation at these actions. And this movement had to be stopped by any available means – which is what happened.

The problem is that there are pro-Russian Ukrainians in the east and more European Ukrainians in the west who want to be closer to the EU. Unless Ukraine is broken up there will always be people who are unhappy.

Come to think of it, that's how it's like now in the United States too.

This problem exists in many countries – I have already mentioned, for example, Spain or the UK. But not everyone is trying to solve such problems by overthrowing the legally elected government and using the army against their own population in the interests of one of the opposing groups.

Sorry, but I don't buy the whole global interconnectedness line for the Black Sea region.

Yes, we want to support NATO, and we'd like to support others there in the region, but not to the point of going to war over the latter in that area.

There's just no REAL strategic interest there for the USA to be concerned about, currently, OR in the near future.

In my personal opinion, in that area, Turkey is much more of a threat to stability in the region there, than Russia currently is.

Naval assets, and/or other US/NATO forces inserted into the region will just be sitting ducks to those forces that are closer, and locally more powerful. Access to the Black Sea is difficult, could easily be cut off at any time, and inserting forces into that region would be very difficult for us to support if it came to blows there.

Reminds me a lot of the South China Sea now, though with even more restricted access.

Thresher, well said.

Well … there is always the UN … 😆