Turn on thread page Beta

Is NATO relevent in todays age and should Britain be a member of it? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The question speaks for itself people although I will elaborate somewhat to avoid any knee jerk responses...

    NATO - An organization of mainly Western nations founded at the start of the cold war, its purpose... collective security against the threat believed to have been posed by the former USSR and its client states. To protect against any soviet invasion or attack against its members with clause 5 being the key here 'an attack on one of us is an attack on us all' this was shoulder to shoulder with the warsaw pact nations or to put it very simply Russia as all these countries answered to or allied themselves to Russia anyway.
    Now during the day this pact did serve a purpose as a deterrence but also as a way for all members to die for a confrontation between only two countries the USA and USSR a case in point would be using European countries as basing areas for American military assets in particular Thermonuclear weapons, anyone in the field of history, politics etc. will tell you that this made these countries first strike targets in any war that elevated to the status of DEFCON 1 ergo the end.

    Now after a brief history here is my main point and question;

    The cold war is technically over although many would argue that its now back for round two; a newly asserted Russia boyed by an influx of funds mainly from minerals [gas, diamonds, uranium and so on] it has begun to re-arm it now has deployed two brand new ballistic missiles both the ICBM [Topol-M] and SLBM the Bulova with others in the works, the fastest cruise missiles in the world, 5th gen fighters [PAK-FA], A new armored platform the Armata [Tank, People carrier, Artillery etc.] and many more fun gadgets and whilst its economy was smacked with sanctions we can still see it rearming very very quickly with very advanced weapons its only real rival being the USA.. Now here is the question.
    Why is NATO still here? Russia may be rearming now but after the cold war it served no purpose did it? its enemy was dead the USSR gone, Russia and Ukraine in economic turmoil in no position to wage a war against an ant colony let alone the NATO countries. But is it relevant now or simply a nice way for America to try and keep a hegemony on world affairs still as its fallen in Asia... Because from where im sitting Russia doesnt pose a threat to us or western Europe half because we are more advanced and indeed a move west would be met with fire from the heavens but because we are not a threat bar a nuclear one. The only threat I can see [this is not including eastern Europe i must stress] is that American and Russian sabre rattling could indeed drag us to oblivion as mentioned we are all host to American military assets and indeed nuclear ones making us a target our only consolation being a small and very limited second strike capability**.... So what do you think does NATO serve a purpose and should we still hold to it?

    UK - about 40 deployed at once on one Boomer. The other sub will be in refit and the other two on exercises or at port.. and no ABM system to speak of bar the T-45 ships which are limited and maybe at a stretch some American assistance.

    Russia - 2500 nuclear warheads deployed via TEL, Submarine, Silo etc. [at least] and a highly advanced ABM system e.g. the S-300/400/500 each capable of whacking a Trident.



    So what is your answer...yes or no and why? or maybe you have a completely different take?

    Personally I'd be happy to see NATO dissapear and a serious effort made to fold the Russian Federation into the international and western community. They are an advanced nation and a valuable one to be on good terms with whilst ostracizing them will not only be backing one of 3 super powers into a corner [bad move] but leaving the nation open to shall we say issues... Russia is a mighty nation but to date it has only ever been able to be led by a strong leader I cant see some tit like Cameron for example being able to actually command such a nation and we wouldnt want to see Russia implode after Putin would we?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    War is the continuation of politics by other means. So long as the interests of Russia and West are not the same, we will need a military to impose our will on our enemy, if the Russians were more open to peaceful and diplomatic methods we would not have to put such a measure in place, but their increasingly autocratic and expansionist ideology tells me it would be a very bad idea to remove NATO. That quote above applies equally for Russia, what idea Putin has for Russia is interesting, i'm just not sure it involves peaceful cooperation...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by whorace)
    War is the continuation of politics by other means. So long as the interests of Russia and West are not the same, we will need a military to impose our will on our enemy, if the Russians were more open to peaceful and diplomatic methods we would not have to put such a measure in place, but their increasingly autocratic and expansionist ideology tells me it would be a very bad idea to remove NATO. That quote above applies equally for Russia, what idea Putin has for Russia is interesting, i'm just not sure it involves peaceful cooperation...
    True but bearing in mind Russia reserves first strike as an option would you really want to be part of an organisation that will only serve to put your nation and people in the face of an SS-18 or the like? Britain and all but the US in this case are ducks in the sight of a punt gun..
    As for Putins policy realisticly its no different from ours is it? They havent gone to war as much as us in recent history and when they have its been small local wars e.g. Georgia...
    As for his ideas for Russia Id say he's aiming to restore at least in part Russia to the state it was in when he was young maybe not with territory but with the power it weilded.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Soldieroffortune)
    True but bearing in mind Russia reserves first strike as an option would you really want to be part of an organisation that will only serve to put your nation and people in the face of an SS-18 or the like? Britain and all but the US in this case are ducks in the sight of a punt gun..
    As for Putins policy realisticly its no different from ours is it? They havent gone to war as much as us in recent history and when they have its been small local wars e.g. Georgia...
    As for his ideas for Russia Id say he's aiming to restore at least in part Russia to the state it was in when he was young maybe not with territory but with the power it weilded.
    I agree with you, all states have an ideology they wish to expand for their own benefit, even the West are not immune to this no matter how much we like to pretend otherwise, in terms of the economy I think there is significant partnership that we could have with the Russians, but there's a serious ideological difference between how the West and Russia seem to think about things that prevents this cooperation.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    NATO as it stands is adequate. Hopefully one day Russia will realise our interest coincide more than they conflict, and that co-operation is better than confrontation, and they will be able to enter the alliance.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Swanbow)
    NATO as it stands is adequate. Hopefully one day Russia will realise our interest coincide more than they conflict, and that co-operation is better than confrontation, and they will be able to enter the alliance.
    By definition they cant enter though? I must say though that their interests arent exactly against NATOs members though are they? If anything theyre very similar it just seems to remind the members of why it was founded an assertive Russia but aside from flexing a very small military muscle its not exactly anything to threat over is it ? Not to mention we're the ones provoking them in that we're pounding them with sanctions and thus basically driving a bear into a corner... Without Russia we likely wouldnt be alive today no matter what they do we do owe them everything and that fact is undeniable, no?
    But whats so bad about them versus some of our 'allies' for instance Saudi who we like for selling oil for weapons is currently bombing the poor blighters in Yemen back to the stone age, theyre ruled by a tyrant and stand against everything we notionally stand for right?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Soldieroffortune)
    By definition they cant enter though? I must say though that their interests arent exactly against NATOs members though are they? If anything theyre very similar it just seems to remind the members of why it was founded an assertive Russia but aside from flexing a very small military muscle its not exactly anything to threat over is it ? Not to mention we're the ones provoking them in that we're pounding them with sanctions and thus basically driving a bear into a corner... Without Russia we likely wouldnt be alive today no matter what they do we do owe them everything and that fact is undeniable, no?
    But whats so bad about them versus some of our 'allies' for instance Saudi who we like for selling oil for weapons is currently bombing the poor blighters in Yemen back to the stone age, theyre ruled by a tyrant and stand against everything we notionally stand for right?
    I'm off to bed but I'll reply in the morning.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Swanbow)
    I'm off to bed but I'll reply in the morning.
    I look forward to it
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    NATO is more relevant than ever before. Russia just carved off a huge chunk of a sovereign European state, and are making threatening noises viz. the ethnic Russian minorities in the Baltic states. It's a fact that the existence of NATO, our system of collective security and force deployments deters Russia from going further. And there's no question Russia fears NATO, this we know from the fact they obsess over it and complain about it constantly.

    Also, in the modern day and age, it makes sense to have a certain collective defence mechanism in the cyber arena. And, in fact, to have one generally (such as the joint NATO E-3 sentry programme); we are stronger when we work together and present a united front.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Soldieroffortune)
    Russia but aside from flexing a very small military muscle its not exactly anything to threat over is it ?
    Except for carving off a huge section of a sovereign neighbouring state in Ukraine, subjecting their eastern provinces to a kind of covert invasion, bullying the Baltic States with cyberattacks and regularly issuing threats against Eastern Europe.

    Not to mention we're the ones provoking them in that we're pounding them with sanctions
    Russia invades a sovereign neighbouring state, and when we respond with sanctions we're the ones engaging in provocation? Seems legit :rolleyes:

    Without Russia we likely wouldnt be alive today no matter what they do we do owe them everything and that fact is undeniable, no?
    (1) No we don't "owe" them, we were fighting a mutual enemy; they also wouldn't have survived without the enormous materiel aid sent to them by the West, with British Lend Lease, with the system of arctic convoys. In particular, British Lend Lease aid of tanks and planes in late 1941 prevented a Soviet collapse in the Battle of Moscow, and thus saved the Soviet Union

    (2) Even if we did "owe" them morally, that doesn't mean we turn a blind eye when they engage in a kind of dangerous nationalistic irredentism and invade one of their neighbours

    theyre ruled by a tyrant
    Yes, Russia is a ruled by a tyrant (and a bigoted, fascistic one to boot). But if they kept to themselves and didn't invade sovereign states, then they would not be suffering sanctions.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatthewParis)
    Except for carving off a huge section of a sovereign neighbouring state in Ukraine, subjecting their eastern provinces to a kind of covert invasion, bullying the Baltic States with cyberattacks and regularly issuing threats against Eastern Europe.
    You mean the bit which isnt huge, was Russian for centuries and is populated by Russians?
    It has issued no threats against them, they simply are paranoid of a Russian invasion.
    Cyber attacks, lol, like the ones the US employs yes?



    (Original post by MatthewParis)
    Russia invades a sovereign neighbouring state, and when we respond with sanctions we're the ones engaging in provocation? Seems legit :rolleyes:
    Prove they invaded, the states in question declared themselves sovereign ergo Russia can do what it likes diplomatically with them. But I guess thats bad compared to us invading and accupying several countries namely Afghanistan and Iraq, attacking Libya and Syria though which is tottally okay?



    (Original post by MatthewParis)
    (1) No we don't "owe" them, we were fighting a mutual enemy; they also wouldn't have survived without the enormous materiel aid sent to them by the West, with Lend Lease, with military aid from the UK, with the system of arctic convoys. They had manpower which we didn't; we had material advantages they did not. Together that combination was able to defeat the Nazis (though of course the Russians used that victory to extend chauvinist, oppressive regimes over all of Eastern Europe)
    Rubbish without the USSR we would either have lost europe or be speaking German now and thats a fact you cant deny, true we helped them but if it wasnt for Stalingrad, Moscow and Kursk where the Soviets won and turned the tide on Hitler we would have had a hell of a time beating those forces should they have been on the western front. I do not deny that in combination we preveiled but without the Russians the war would have been played out very differently, do you think those millions of Soviet fighters died for nothing? Mate that's not only ignorant but offensive to the memory of those people who fought literally hand to hand with the Nazis. No one gave more than the USSR thats a fact. As for Stalins betrayal thats a different story altogether which we could write a thesis on so I would suggest we leave that. As for lend lease im not aware of the soviets really being a part of that, true britain was hammered by the capitalist pigs in washington and still are today but if you would enlighten me as to what the Soviets did in that bar accepting supplies to stave off defeat in the East and enable us to retake the West please say?


    (Original post by MatthewParis)
    (2) Even if we did "owe" them morally, that doesn't mean we turn a blind eye when they engage in a kind of dangerous nationalistic irredentism and invade one of their neighbours
    They havent invaded anywhere outright and you know this, i dont deny the eyebrow raising queary of Crimea but aside from that on a legal basis they are entitled to give whatever support they like to areas that declare independence. Also I think you should read a history book we are in NO position to judge what transpired there considering the wars we have been in constantly for years where Russia has played no role in illegal invasions for selfish greed that have left an entire region in anarchy... Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen etc. are all failed thanks to western intervention to 'help' the people there, deny it I beg you.




    (Original post by MatthewParis)
    Yes, Russia is a ruled by a tyrant (and a bigoted, fascistic one to boot). But if they kept to themselves and didn't invade sovereign states, then they would not be suffering sanctions.
    I think you're being a little harsh on that front, this is just my opinion and having many Russian friends to quote from, I would say Putin has done wonders for Russia, true there have been great costs for it in personal freedoms but Russia is far better off since he gained power and it is widely believed within the international community that shoul he suddenly, lets say die, Russia could well implode. To govern such a vast country with such issues is a tremendous task and he has navigated it in a manner that i would say is probably the best that could be expected without leaving it like it was in the 90's... in tatters with missing WMDs, no pay for workers and soldiers, no economy etc.
    No that is utter **** and you know it, they have not invaded anyone, if they had you'd know it. They have bar the U.S. and possibly PLA the most effective army in the world, simply giving weapons to people they support doesnt qualify as an invasion and even if they did send forth their army it would be no different than Iraq, The elected government of Ukraine was deposed and replaced undemocratically with Fascists and idiots. The Crimea [aside from being Russian for eons] did elect to become part of the federation again and the break away states are entitled to do so, if they dont want to be part of Ukraine then thats their choice they arent the ones shelling and firing rocket volleys into cities as much as the Ukrainian army. The sanctions are nothing but western hypocritical rubbish aimed at Russia, namely because we've been doing this and far worse for decades and on their doorstep, how would the Americans like it if the Russians started bombing Mexico like they did to Serbia for instance?

    Main point here is that whats being said by western governments is hypocritical at best and downright warmongering otherwise, We have no business in that part of the world as the Russians have none in South and Central America, do you deny this? Placing ABMs and staging military exercises on their doorstep is something they cant ignore and are well within their rights to push back at. That is simple diplomatic conduct, you dont piss off the superpower next door!?

    Also how is Putin a bigoted fascist, I reserve my views on him but i'd like to know why you think this.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Soldieroffortune)
    You mean the bit which isnt huge, was Russian for centuries and is populated by Russians?
    It has issued no threats against them, they simply are paranoid of a Russian invasion.
    Cyber attacks, lol, like the ones the US employs yes?




    Prove they invaded, the states in question declared themselves sovereign ergo Russia can do what it likes diplomatically with them. But I guess thats bad compared to us invading and accupying several countries namely Afghanistan and Iraq, attacking Libya and Syria though which is tottally okay?




    Rubbish without the USSR we would either have lost europe or be speaking German now and thats a fact you cant deny, true we helped them but if it wasnt for Stalingrad, Moscow and Kursk where the Soviets won and turned the tide on Hitler we would have had a hell of a time beating those forces should they have been on the western front. I do not deny that in combination we preveiled but without the Russians the war would have been played out very differently, do you think those millions of Soviet fighters died for nothing? Mate that's not only ignorant but offensive to the memory of those people who fought literally hand to hand with the Nazis. No one gave more than the USSR thats a fact. As for Stalins betrayal thats a different story altogether which we could write a thesis on so I would suggest we leave that. As for lend lease im not aware of the soviets really being a part of that, true britain was hammered by the capitalist pigs in washington and still are today but if you would enlighten me as to what the Soviets did in that bar accepting supplies to stave off defeat in the East and enable us to retake the West please say?



    They havent invaded anywhere outright and you know this, i dont deny the eyebrow raising queary of Crimea but aside from that on a legal basis they are entitled to give whatever support they like to areas that declare independence. Also I think you should read a history book we are in NO position to judge what transpired there considering the wars we have been in constantly for years where Russia has played no role in illegal invasions for selfish greed that have left an entire region in anarchy... Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen etc. are all failed thanks to western intervention to 'help' the people there, deny it I beg you.





    I think you're being a little harsh on that front, this is just my opinion and having many Russian friends to quote from, I would say Putin has done wonders for Russia, true there have been great costs for it in personal freedoms but Russia is far better off since he gained power and it is widely believed within the international community that shoul he suddenly, lets say die, Russia could well implode. To govern such a vast country with such issues is a tremendous task and he has navigated it in a manner that i would say is probably the best that could be expected without leaving it like it was in the 90's... in tatters with missing WMDs, no pay for workers and soldiers, no economy etc.
    No that is utter **** and you know it, they have not invaded anyone, if they had you'd know it. They have bar the U.S. and possibly PLA the most effective army in the world, simply giving weapons to people they support doesnt qualify as an invasion and even if they did send forth their army it would be no different than Iraq, The elected government of Ukraine was deposed and replaced undemocratically with Fascists and idiots. The Crimea [aside from being Russian for eons] did elect to become part of the federation again and the break away states are entitled to do so, if they dont want to be part of Ukraine then thats their choice they arent the ones shelling and firing rocket volleys into cities as much as the Ukrainian army. The sanctions are nothing but western hypocritical rubbish aimed at Russia, namely because we've been doing this and far worse for decades and on their doorstep, how would the Americans like it if the Russians started bombing Mexico like they did to Serbia for instance?

    Main point here is that whats being said by western governments is hypocritical at best and downright warmongering otherwise, We have no business in that part of the world as the Russians have none in South and Central America, do you deny this? Placing ABMs and staging military exercises on their doorstep is something they cant ignore and are well within their rights to push back at. That is simple diplomatic conduct, you dont piss off the superpower next door!?

    Also how is Putin a bigoted fascist, I reserve my views on him but i'd like to know why you think this.
    Your English is very good Mr Putin.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    One of the main functions of NATO is limit nuclear proliferation and decrease the risk of accidental or deliberate nuclear war. Without NATO, many former Warsaw Pact countries like Poland would feel they need their own nuclear weapons.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    Soldier of fortune?

    Putin is old school and the cold war is his comfort zone. If he wants the sanctions lifted and to open better diplomatic ties and negotiations then the answer Is simple: pull out of Ukraine, remove all Russian troops massed at the borders, admit it was a Russian supplied BUK missile that brought down MH17, stop killing anyone who challenges his authority and start telling the Russian people THE TRUTH.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    NATO is key to our collective defense, at least in the UK. While there may be doubt as to whether the US would honour it's word in the Baltics, it certainly would were the UK attacked (not only that but US polls show massive support should UK be attacked so the people would demand it).

    I have absolutely no issue with sanctioning Russia and would given the chance use this opportunity to rearm considerably. Russia in their actions in Georgia and Ukraine have proven themselves enemies of the west and while the west has won most of Ukraine, there is most definitely a skirmish coming. Russia will not stop attempting expansion and the west will not tolerate Russia's prodding action forever.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    NATO is key to our collective defense, at least in the UK. While there may be doubt as to whether the US would honour it's word in the Baltics, it certainly would were the UK attacked (not only that but US polls show massive support should UK be attacked so the people would demand it).

    I have absolutely no issue with sanctioning Russia and would given the chance use this opportunity to rearm considerably. Russia in their actions in Georgia and Ukraine have proven themselves enemies of the west and while the west has won most of Ukraine, there is most definitely a skirmish coming. Russia will not stop attempting expansion and the west will not tolerate Russia's prodding action forever.
    The US have no choice but to back the Baltic countries if they were attacked by Russia. If it did nothing, no NATO country could rely on NATO to defend it and there would be a rush to rearm by all NATO countries and the US's influence would disappear.

    None NATO countries that also rely on the US to defend them such as Japan, S Korea and Taiwan would also rush to increase their arms if there was doubt the US would defend them. No doubt, they will acquire nuclear weapons as well. All 3 countries could make their own nuclear weapons in a few years and in Japan's case, they also have a viable delivery system.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Soldieroffortune)
    Personally I'd be happy to see NATO dissapear and a serious effort made to fold the Russian Federation into the international and western community.
    Attempts have been made to do this. The current establishment in Russia (mostly made up of ex-Soviet types) has made it clear that they are not interested, except when it comes to the financial side of the current international regime, which benefits the Russian oligarchy. This is why the sanctions have been targeting Russia's financial establishment and various bigwigs associated with it.

    (Original post by Soldieroffortune)
    They are an advanced nation and a valuable one to be on good terms with whilst ostracizing them will not only be backing one of 3 super powers into a corner [bad move] but leaving the nation open to shall we say issues...
    We're not ostracising them. The invitation to join the international community, to embrace human rights, to embrace international law, it's still there. But Putin isn't interested. It doesn't fit his agenda of neo-Stalinism. Embracing the 'international and western community' is for Putin a defeat. His cult of personalty would be tarnished.

    (Original post by Soldieroffortune)
    Russia is a mighty nation but to date it has only ever been able to be led by a strong leader I cant see some tit like Cameron for example being able to actually command such a nation and we wouldnt want to see Russia implode after Putin would we?
    So we are to abandon a collective defence community because Russia might struggle without Putin? That is a very weak argument.

    The Russian government is a reprehensible oligarchy. The country is falling apart, human rights violations in that country are rife and freedom of speech is severely curtailed. Under no circumstances do I want to give more room for such an ideology to prosper.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Soldieroffortune)
    By definition they cant enter though? I must say though that their interests arent exactly against NATOs members though are they? If anything theyre very similar it just seems to remind the members of why it was founded an assertive Russia but aside from flexing a very small military muscle its not exactly anything to threat over is it ? Not to mention we're the ones provoking them in that we're pounding them with sanctions and thus basically driving a bear into a corner... Without Russia we likely wouldnt be alive today no matter what they do we do owe them everything and that fact is undeniable, no?
    But whats so bad about them versus some of our 'allies' for instance Saudi who we like for selling oil for weapons is currently bombing the poor blighters in Yemen back to the stone age, theyre ruled by a tyrant and stand against everything we notionally stand for right?
    Well it is said NATO existed to ''to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down'' :lol: Russia will never join it, but it would make the international North a lot stronger.

    I hope that Russian actions in Ukraine cease, and through favourable trade and defence agreements we can put an end to this 'cool war'. Sanctioning them is right considering their actions. But the Russian's have a 'laager mentality', to borrow a South African expression, in that any expansion near their borders and any international isolation just increases their resolve into a country that feels surrounded and more willing to do irrational things. If they weren't so difficult to interpret we could have understood that Ukraine was a red-line for them, but even then to deny closer relations between the West and Ukraine at their own violation would be against our very principles. .

    I wouldn't say we owe the Russians everything. The Soviets; including Azerbaijanis, Georgians, Armenians, Uzbeks, Turkmen, Ukrainians, Belarusians, Russians and others collectively paid great deal defeating the Nazis, but we also played our part.

    I don't like our alliance with the Saudis, the sooner it is over the better. I agree in that we have nothing in common with them, it is a relationship of convenience.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Swanbow)
    Well it is said NATO existed to ''to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down'' :lol: Russia will never join it, but it would make the international North a lot stronger.

    I hope that Russian actions in Ukraine cease, and through favourable trade and defence agreements we can put an end to this 'cool war'. Sanctioning them is right considering their actions. But the Russian's have a 'laager mentality', to borrow a South African expression, in that any expansion near their borders and any international isolation just increases their resolve into a country that feels surrounded and more willing to do irrational things. If they weren't so difficult to interpret we could have understood that Ukraine was a red-line for them, but even then to deny closer relations between the West and Ukraine at their own violation would be against our very principles. .

    I wouldn't say we owe the Russians everything. The Soviets; including Azerbaijanis, Georgians, Armenians, Uzbeks, Turkmen, Ukrainians, Belarusians, Russians and others collectively paid great deal defeating the Nazis, but we also played our part.

    I don't like our alliance with the Saudis, the sooner it is over the better. I agree in that we have nothing in common with them, it is a relationship of convenience.
    Aha oh yes, The Russians hate the EU let alone NATO and considering NATO is purely a military organisation aimed at them well... :P

    I respect the rationale you have there, i mean i personally disagree as i view it as Russia not having done anything wrong [only in so far as we've been doing it for years] but it was obvious that going into their sphere of influence and indeed front yard was going to really aggravate them and im surprised that any leader is surprised about what happened.. I stand by though technically speaking and legally they are entitled to do what theyre doing. Crimea well if we ignore any talk of riggged elections etc. that was perfectly fine and the break away states in the east declared themselves sovereign and asked Russia for aid which due to the first they can give, not to mention we've been doing that in the middle east, Asia, africa and well everywhere for years... Russia hasn't outright invaded anywhere in the conventional sense has it? If it had we would know as Ukraine would be a part of the federation :L

    Oh of course i mean we stould against the Nazi war machine on our own for two years before the USSR was forced in and the USA decided to come in but if the USSR hadn't its a fact that retaking Europe would have been a lot harder if not impossible since it was Russia that put the Nazis on the back foot after all right?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Soldieroffortune)
    Aha oh yes, The Russians hate the EU let alone NATO and considering NATO is purely a military organisation aimed at them well... :P

    I respect the rationale you have there, i mean i personally disagree as i view it as Russia not having done anything wrong [only in so far as we've been doing it for years] but it was obvious that going into their sphere of influence and indeed front yard was going to really aggravate them and im surprised that any leader is surprised about what happened.. I stand by though technically speaking and legally they are entitled to do what theyre doing. Crimea well if we ignore any talk of riggged elections etc. that was perfectly fine and the break away states in the east declared themselves sovereign and asked Russia for aid which due to the first they can give, not to mention we've been doing that in the middle east, Asia, africa and well everywhere for years... Russia hasn't outright invaded anywhere in the conventional sense has it? If it had we would know as Ukraine would be a part of the federation :L

    Oh of course i mean we stould against the Nazi war machine on our own for two years before the USSR was forced in and the USA decided to come in but if the USSR hadn't its a fact that retaking Europe would have been a lot harder if not impossible since it was Russia that put the Nazis on the back foot after all right?
    You may want to read up on lend lease and Americas pre war involvement.

    Defeat of maxi Germany was a team effort. No one ally nation could've succeeded without the others help.
 
 
 

3,076

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.