So we are back to the Cold War again?

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

The exit from the the treaty would give the Russians a quasi free ride to position their missiles where they wanted - because the INF Treaty would no longer control them.

The USA, on the other hand, as far as I know, does not currently have comparable missiles with a similar range. Even if they did, they would also have to station them in Europe, where the willingness to do so is low in many countries.

And: the USA is now again regarded worldwide as those who are responsible for the end of an important agreement without ever having provided concrete proof of violations.

I'm so sure you believe Putin that Russia hasn't been cheating on the treaty.

if European nations don't want medium-range missiles on their soil, that's A-OK. They wouldn't be there to defend the US Homeland.

This is all about China. It has very little to do with Russia or Europe. You've allowed yourselves to be pawns and now you must live with it.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

I don't blame you for not wanting to return to a Cold War with Russia, but at some point, you and other Germans need to forge a defense that doesn't entirely depend on a foreign country. You really can't trust the US to remain in a political paradigm that is almost 100 years old.

I don't see the Cold War as us being at "war" with/against Russia but being the battlefield of those involved in this "war".

Our Bundeswehr has always and according to our constitution been a "defence force". This only changed during the last decades and only by "stretching" the interpretation of the constitution (with the placet of the Federal Constitutional Court).

The text of our Basic Law shows clear mistrust of military power - from perhaps to most probably the related articles will by changed in a couple of years. (That is those articles which aren't related to the "eternity clause" [The eternity clause establishes that certain fundamental principles of Germany's democracy can never be removed, even by parliament.])

2 Replies

Its a mistake to oversimplify every complex issue into a few paragraphs. Especially glib oversimplification. The US and the allies need as large a buffer as possible to maintain peace. We’ve already seen creeping dominate behaviour from Russia over the Crimea and Chechnya. While Bush was President we saw Putin restore the LRA flights, which they agreed to halted during those heady days when the Russians wanted everyone to think they didn’t crave to restore their image of a super power. Just look at the geography, NATO has a great network that has hammered out cooperation and is a necessary safeguard. Ok, it’s not perfect, but I don’t want to see the world have to turn to dust before we realize that cooperation and treaty’s and agreements are vital.

I’m not going to start with the conditions that led to the Great War or to WWII, and explain why it’s important to avoid past mistakes. All of us are in a better position to isolate conflict so the world doesn’t explode in another pointless war. It’s unfortunate that too many of my fellow citizens are so cavalier about issues and almost arrogant regarding the idea that we can win any war all by ourselves....we’ve always had help and all the allies rely on each other. In he past cooler heads have emerged to pull back from the brink, I wish people would do actual research and see for themselves how this all fits/ how it occasionally breaks and then how it gets repaired. I’m fed up with the sloganeering and simplistic views of people who simply parrot the politicians sound bites.

Scholars and historians have written countless books on almost every minute of the conditions that led, the conditions that existed, long forgotten accounts of spectacular falures and spectacular successes that occurred. Historians write conflicting accounts, and that’s why you read everything to sift thru the differing versions. If we don’t educate ourselves we will not be in a position to call bullshit when the rubber needs to hit the road.

I have a few other things to do right now, so I’m not in a mood to condense every aspect of world history into a few snappy phrases. Read a book, a history book.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

I don't see the Cold War as us being at "war" with/against Russia but being the battlefield of those involved in this "war".

That's cute. I bet it gets many nodding heads in Germany.

I imagine Belgium and the Netherlands (to name but two) didn't want to be the battlefield for the wars of the Great Powers of Europe either.

This sounds like you believe that without the US as a global superpower, the Soviet Union, would have been content to leave Europe alone.

If only the US would stop flexing its muscles! Then surely Russia and China would be content within their current borders.

I have argued far more than once that contemporary Germans have no responsibility for what their nation did in the past, but to think that your fairly recent past hasn't taught you the reality of geopolitics and powerful aggressors is simply incredible.

Trump's attitude towards NATO (and of course his electoral victory) is a sign that the American people are losing their historical affinity for a continent that, increasingly, seems out of alignment with American interests. Whether or not this is actually the case is immaterial. When approx 50% of the population of the nation upon which you depend for your freedom begins to feel you are not worth their money you, not them, have the bigger problem.

Instead, Europeans like you think that there is some profit in declaring that our president is a neanderthal and thus so must be those who voted for him. That crap gets applause from glitterbag and blatham, but it does your nation no good.

So short-sighted.

3 Replies

@glitterbag,

glitterbag wrote:

The US and the allies

two entirely separate groups now, thanks to the very fine efforts of #45

can't wait til we're entirely out of CAMUS

2 Replies

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

glitterbag wrote:
The US and the allies

two entirely separate groups now, thanks to the very fine efforts of #45

can't wait til we're entirely out of CAMUS

What is CAMUS?

I googled it and came up with nothing but Albert.

You are an anti-American. That's fine, but I hope you won't deny it. Just honestly embrace it.

Thank goodness that there is a conservative movement in Canada who are not about to flush their national interests down the toilet for silly emotional reasons ("I hate #45!")

Quote:

two entirely separate groups now, thanks to the very fine efforts of #45

They always were as demonstrated by the number of "allies" who refuse to meet their defense spending committments.

The world is heading towards a dark place: They come around quite regularly. If you believe China is not intent on global domination, you are, frankly, an utter fool.

This time around the US may not be able to stop the forces of tyranny and if so it will, in part, be due to its feckless allies who believe it is a tyranny.

In any case, Europe and Canada will be eaten up before America.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

Trump's attitude towards NATO (and of course his electoral victory) is a sign that the American people are losing their historical affinity for a continent that, increasingly, seems out of alignment with American interests. Whether or not this is actually the case is immaterial. When approx 50% of the population of the nation upon which you depend for your freedom begins to feel you are not worth their money you, not them, have the bigger problem.

Talk about shortsighted on both your and that approx 50% parts.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

Well, I’m no fan of Trump, he’s in over his head and trying to reorganize the country as if it was his private company. He’s stupid to think he can get away with this forever, and if the mid-terms don’t break in favor of his enablers, that support will evaporate instantly.

Professionally and personally I loved working with the Canadians.... I think we had many joint successes and I’m sure we will work well together in the future.

But I like to take the long view. To each his own.

1 Reply

Plump did not get 50% of the vote, not by a long shot. Finn, as usual, shoots off his mouth without actually providing any evidence for his claim. He hasn't shown that NATO was an important issue for the considerably less than 50% of the electorate who voted for him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016

So, fractionally less than 56% of the electorate actually voted. Keeping it simple, 56% time the 46% who voted for Plump means that fractionally less than 26% of all registered voters went with the fat boy.

Even if Finn could make a plausible case that NATO was an important issue with those who voted for Plump, it would still mean that a hell of a lot less than half the population gave a rat's ass about NATO and Plump's typical, whiny worry about being cheated. Although, considering the extent to which he has relied on cheating others in his career, I can see why he would obsess about it.

Plump does not have the authority to pull the U.S. out of NATO, and he does not have the authority to pull the U.S. out of this treaty. The first clause of Article Two, Section Two of the constitution reads: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;. . . .

http://constitutionus.com

1 Reply

That moron Trump just called himself a nationalist at the “look at Me” party in Texas!!!! The beauty of this is that no one in that crowd can define the word.......Texas must have confiscated the dictionaries, and apparently they are more concerned about prayer in school. So, ok, the fundamentalists have convinced me, I’m going to start praying.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

I don't see the Cold War as us being at "war" with/against Russia but being the battlefield of those involved in this "war".

That's cute. I bet it gets many nodding heads in Germany.

I imagine Belgium and the Netherlands (to name but two) didn't want to be the battlefield for the wars of the Great Powers of Europe either.

That might well be (they had stationed their troops here, too.) But I was, I admit, quite egoistically just thinking for myself, with those camps here, and being closer to the border.

Cute, as you say.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Instead, Europeans like you think that there is some profit in declaring that our president is a neanderthal and thus so must be those who voted for him. That crap gets applause from glitterbag and blatham, but it does your nation no good.

It's no secret that I don'nt like his politics, but I can't remember having called your president a Neanderthaler nor do I think that gives me some profit.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

The reason for the current fears is Trump's announcement to terminate the INF treaty banning short- and medium-range land-based missiles with a range of 500 to 5500 kilometres.

How long would it take a nuclear missile to travel from Poland to Moscow? About two and a half minutes? Not much time to take cover.

Walter Hinteler wrote:

I don't want to experience this again.

A cold war is preferable to a shooting war.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

The USA, on the other hand, as far as I know, does not currently have comparable missiles with a similar range.

I'm sure our weapons industry is up to the task of developing a Pershing III missile.

I wouldn't mind seeing the Michigan Volunteer Defense Force armed with medium range ballistic missiles. It would give the southwest something to think about next time they want to divert drinking water from the Great Lakes.

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Even if they did, they would also have to station them in Europe, where the willingness to do so is low in many countries.

What does Poland think?

Incidentally, the mere threat of deploying the missiles is itself valuable. If we give Poland the option to choose to deploy our missiles on their soil, then Putin will have an incentive to not antagonize Poland into granting that permission.

As for certain other ungrateful countries who spit on us and call us imperialists, I really don't care about protecting those countries. So far as I'm concerned, Putin can do with those countries as he pleases.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Plump does not have the authority to pull the U.S. out of NATO, and he does not have the authority to pull the U.S. out of this treaty. The first clause of Article Two, Section Two of the constitution reads: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;. . . .

That limits the authority to make a treaty, not the authority to pull out of a treaty.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

The downside if that reasoning is who will be willing to enter into treaties with the US, if they can’t trust us to sick to agreements. We have presidential elections every 4 years....why would any country make deals or sign treaties with the US if they can be jettisoned on a whim.

This isn’t like making plans with the neighbors to host a party. Agreements, treaties, trading, Intell cooperation takes a huge amount of planning..and scrupulous adherence.. Trump likes the idea of uncertainty, he seems to think it keeps people on their toes...but it just makes us look indesisive, unreliable and Trump is capricious, it’s not a good thing if you want to play on the World Stage.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

What does Poland think?

I don't know what they (and the Baltic states) really thought during the Cold War though I'm acquainted with some from there.

Regarding today's feelings - I suppose, they are very similar to ours here.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:
I don't want to experience this again.
A cold war is preferable to a shooting war.

True. But I do like peace more.

2 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Apparently oral doesn’t know that Poland was behind the Iron Curtain and very few people knew what they thought during the Cold War. It wasn’t wise for the Poles to speak freely about their political leanings because they lived under Communist rule. It wasn’t until Sept 1980 that workers at the Lenin Shipyard in Gdańsk climbed over the fence in defiance of the Govt. Lech Walesa led the movement and established “ Solidarnosc”, the first labor union that wasn’t controlled by the Communist Party. The Poles never called the US imperialists.

3 Replies

@glitterbag,

Quote:

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - NATO allies are not expected to deploy more nuclear weapons in Europe in response to what the West says is a Russian breach of an arms control treaty, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said on Wednesday.

“I don’t foresee that European allies will deploy more nuclear weapons as a response,” he told a news conference.

reuters

1 Reply

So we are back to the Cold War again?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know