Flaming Pie
Well-Known Member
What about Kosovo and Afghanistan? They aren't members yet received robust military support from NATO.
So what do we do now with the "refugees"?
- Thread starter ChesusRice
- Start date
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
The Baltic States are members.
Go check your link.
We invaded Afghanistan with a coalition. Not NATO
Flaming Pie
Well-Known Member
Kosovo had NAto bomb for them and afghanistan did too.
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_48818.htm
NATO has been leading a peace-support operation in Kosovo since June 1999 in support of wider international efforts to build peace and stability in the area.
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_8189.htm
NATO took command of the United Nations-mandated International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan in August 2003.
Neither of them are on the member list.
pnwmystery
Well-Known Member
I edited my statement to reflect that last sentence in your post. To answer your question, no not in recent history.
Flaming Pie
Well-Known Member
This strategic partnership has of course been rocked by Russia's course of action in Crimea and eastern Ukraine. Both NATO's secretary general and the Supreme Allied Commander Europe say that Russia is no longer a partner but a threat, an opponent. Do you share this assessment?
No, not at all. These are statements that don't contribute to de-escalating the situation, instead they escalate it.
What we're dealing with now is a regionally confined crisis. There are Russian interests on one side, and the interests of NATO's member states on the other.
NATO as an organization has no interests. This is where the Founding Act says that whenever the safety of both or the security interests of one of the signatory sides is concerned, the partners get together to find a solution to the conflict. NATO hasn't done that so far, just like in 2008, when the conflict between Russia and Georgia developed. NATO didn't formally terminate cooperation, but it terminated or suspended practical programs. That's a mistake! If you create a tool for crisis management, it makes sense to use it when the situation arises.
In Ukraine, Russia has maneuvered itself into a position that is basically a dead-end. But so has the West, because in the end, sanctions lead nowhere. Actually, this could be the last opportunity to find a common solution, but to do so, they would have to get together for talks.
Do you believe it would have been better to have a NATO-Russia Council alongside the summit, or after the summit, so they could talk? There is going to be a NATO-Ukraine Commission, but no NATO-Russia Council.
Yes, that truly is a mistake. But it wouldn't have had much chance at success at such short notice. That would have needed more preparation: first, the foreign ministers would have had to talk, and that could have progressed to the heads of state and government. It really is a pity that NATO has failed so blatantly in this case.
Retired General Harald Kujat (72) served as General Inspector of Germany's Bundeswehr from 2000 to 2002 - the highest-ranking soldier in the German military and a top government advisor. From 2002 to 2005, he was chairman of the NATO Military Committee.
http://www.dw.com/en/ex-general-nato-has-failed-blatantly-in-ukraine/a-17895454
No, not at all. These are statements that don't contribute to de-escalating the situation, instead they escalate it.
What we're dealing with now is a regionally confined crisis. There are Russian interests on one side, and the interests of NATO's member states on the other.
NATO as an organization has no interests. This is where the Founding Act says that whenever the safety of both or the security interests of one of the signatory sides is concerned, the partners get together to find a solution to the conflict. NATO hasn't done that so far, just like in 2008, when the conflict between Russia and Georgia developed. NATO didn't formally terminate cooperation, but it terminated or suspended practical programs. That's a mistake! If you create a tool for crisis management, it makes sense to use it when the situation arises.
In Ukraine, Russia has maneuvered itself into a position that is basically a dead-end. But so has the West, because in the end, sanctions lead nowhere. Actually, this could be the last opportunity to find a common solution, but to do so, they would have to get together for talks.
Do you believe it would have been better to have a NATO-Russia Council alongside the summit, or after the summit, so they could talk? There is going to be a NATO-Ukraine Commission, but no NATO-Russia Council.
Yes, that truly is a mistake. But it wouldn't have had much chance at success at such short notice. That would have needed more preparation: first, the foreign ministers would have had to talk, and that could have progressed to the heads of state and government. It really is a pity that NATO has failed so blatantly in this case.
Retired General Harald Kujat (72) served as General Inspector of Germany's Bundeswehr from 2000 to 2002 - the highest-ranking soldier in the German military and a top government advisor. From 2002 to 2005, he was chairman of the NATO Military Committee.
http://www.dw.com/en/ex-general-nato-has-failed-blatantly-in-ukraine/a-17895454
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
The Baltic States are indeed part of NATO
Just give up. And admit you and cen barson are wrong
Flaming Pie
Well-Known Member
The Baltic states, also known as the Baltics, Baltic nations or Baltic countries, are the three countries in northern Europe on the eastern coast of the Baltic Sea: Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.
I don't see afghanistan or kosovo in that.
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/nato_countries.htm
I am looking right on their page. No afghanistan or kosovo.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
I don't see Ukraine either
Look up Vilnius group
pnwmystery
Well-Known Member
@MuyLocoNC though I do have to point out terrorism isn't isolated to Muslims of Middle Eastern origin. Just look at the 2011 Norway attacks when self described Christian crusader Anders Breivik murdered 77 people and injured at least 319 more.
Flaming Pie
Well-Known Member
The members were: Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Republic of Macedonia, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia.
That is what I found.
Look, all I am saying is this:
Afghanistan and Kosovo received military support from NATO. They were not members. So to say another non member cannot receive military support from NATO is a false statement because Afghanistan and Kosovo were not members and received support.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Afghanistan got invaded by a coalition. Not NATO
Kosovo was probably the same
Ben Carson lied when he said NATO failed Ukraine.
Carson also doesn't know shit about geopiltics or telling the truth
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
Yes, and the reason they are on the move is they have no place to go. The ROE`s involved do not allow for responsibility of refugees. The strategy is go out in small groups and kill, do not take land.
You must take the Capital, Hold the Capital with the NG and refugees have a place to go.
This war is a clusterfuck because nothing is done about displacement, ROE`s are more policing that conquer, nobody takes responsibility, and the future holds nothing but more land for bad guys to grab because the people are gone.
Take the Capital has always been the first battle to win, for more reasons than you took it for.
Flaming Pie
Well-Known Member
What are you talking about with afghanistan. I gave you my citations.
pnwmystery
Well-Known Member
NATO involvement in Kosovo was due to a Security Council Resolution. Very different.
Flaming Pie
Well-Known Member
The argument was over whether a nonmember of NATO could receive military aid.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
The argument was NATO failed a country it made no promises to and had no obligation to help
NATO didn't fail Ukraine
Ukraine is not a member nor was it promised anything
Flaming Pie
Well-Known Member
It signed an agreement, that I referenced earlier, that said NATO was to help protect its sovereignty.
woody333333
Well-Known Member
No... You've tried to change it to that
It's whether or not NATO failed Ukraine as you Ben and God claim.....
pnwmystery
Well-Known Member
Crash course on international relations: The only thing that is binding is a ratified treaty. Memorandums like the Budapest Memorandum are non binding, meaning that signatories are not committed to act one way or another. An assurance is only that: an assurance and nothing more.
While I greatly dislike Russia violating Ukraine's sovereignty NATO is not required to protect Ukraine's sovereignty in any way shape or form.