Nato faces 'dim future', warns Pentagon chief

[MarshalPurnell]

Russia will have a much stronger hand in its near-abroad, seriously damaging the interests of countries like Poland, the Baltic States, and Romania. Germany is likely to become more and more economically dependent on Russian gas supplies, so one might see a decoupling of Eastern Europe from the orbit of Western Europe as the Germans fail to support the former Warsaw Pact nations against Russian pressure.

Hahaha. But no. Everytime the Russians have tried to seriously move against them, we helped the Eastern Europeans.

Just because Germany, to date, with the full knowledge of American support, has backed Eastern Europe when pressured by Russia does not mean it will continue to do so if left on its own. Especially if the Poles remain troublesome over EU issues, and Russian gas supplies become ever more vital, and constituencies favoring expanding German ties to Russia at the expense of the rest of Europe grow. Gerhard Schroeder did nothing to suggest that German-Russian rapprochement at the expense of the middle powers is impossible.

but the rest of Europe is demilitarizing and does not have a collective will to act like a Superpower or even a Great Power.

What are, in your opinion, the ways to act for a Great Power?

A great power needs to be able to use military force to defend its vital interests. Europe does not have the will to, for example, replace the United States as a guarantor of Middle Eastern oil supplies, or to preserve a balance of power in Asia. It frankly would be unable to operate in any significant way outside its own continent, with exceptions for France acting alone in a peripheral fashion.

Europe does not even come close to paying a fair share of the alliance's military budget (and never has, not even at the height of the Soviet threat)

I would be interested in sources for that.

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=2976&type=0&sequence=1

Defense spending as a percentage of GDP, which measures the share of a country's national income devoted to defense, is a widely cited measure of defense burdensharing. Throughout NATO's 50-year history, the United States has spent a larger share of its GDP on defense than have most of its allies. In 1985, at the height of the Cold War arms buildup, the United States spent 6.7 percent of its GDP on defense, compared with the European allies' 3.5 percent of their collective GDP spent on defense. By 1999, those figures declined to 3.0 percent and 2.3 percent, respectively.

Two conclusions can be drawn from those figures. First, with the exception of Greece and Turkey, Europeans on the whole spend considerably less on defense than does the United States. Second, the spending gap has narrowed since 1985. All of the NATO allies came closer to matching the U.S. defense commitment in 1999 than they did in 1985.

I do not have the time or inclination to do significant research for the entire 40 year span of NATO's Cold War existence, but I have seen a great many sources reference the disparity in military spending as a percentage of GDP. The 3.5% of collective European GDP hides significant disparities between European countries, with the British and French typically spending higher and the smaller countries of NATO barely getting to 3%, or even going lower. West Germany, despite being the most threatened state, rarely spent more than 3% of GNP according to figures here.

and has proven to be of limited use providing auxiliary formations for American aims, even in their own backyard of the Balkans.

I dispute that, seeing as to how the Americans had little to do with the following occupation once the bombing had stopped. Besides sheltering Mladic, that is.

Could Europe have brought about the resolution to Bosnia by itself? Could it have faced down Serbia, flush with at least rhetorical Russian support, with its own resources? I think it very unlikely.

And meh. The French have also been implicated in protecting Serbian war criminals, and Srebrenica showed just how effective European "peacekeepers" are by themselves when it comes to facing down an enemy more formidable than African tribal militias.

[Artemas]

Could Europe have brought about the resolution to Bosnia by itself? Could it have faced down Serbia, flush with at least rhetorical Russian support, with its own resources? I think it very unlikely.

And meh. The French have also been implicated in protecting Serbian war criminals, and Srebrenica showed just how effective European "peacekeepers" are by themselves when it comes to facing down an enemy more formidable than African tribal militias.

Europe probably could have, and mostly did. Non-Americans were the boots on the ground, and the Europeans contributed quite substantially to NATO led, UNPROFOR-requested airstrikes.

European "peacekeepers" succeeded at Gorazde and at Medak and at other places. Srebrinica was a complex event, and has a myriad of causes. That you accuse a major failure on "Europeans" indicates your ignorance and bias.

[Artemas]

I don't know if I would go that far, but at least her factual record on the CIA reports etc. seem to be correct.

Yeah, the CIA thing does seem to be mostly correct.

It seemed rather unusual that you and the Spiegel would only mention the Americans though, and not the British or French.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I have to ask: posters here bring Bosnia etc. etc., which is a decade ago. Nations were still riding on their Cold War militaries then.

Fast forward to the present, it seems that NATO isn't even remotely serious about Libya, and then you have Germany practically not doing much. I don't know about you, but getting defensive and bringing up the past to defend something seems rather out of touch with the present.

[Thanas]

Just because Germany, to date, with the full knowledge of American support, has backed Eastern Europe when pressured by Russia does not mean it will continue to do so if left on its own. Especially if the Poles remain troublesome over EU issues, and Russian gas supplies become ever more vital, and constituencies favoring expanding German ties to Russia at the expense of the rest of Europe grow. Gerhard Schroeder did nothing to suggest that German-Russian rapprochement at the expense of the middle powers is impossible.

Schröder does not set policy. If the Poles want to be troublesome, that is their beef, but they have a huge military and are quite confident to hold their own. I also like how you ignore that Germany went quite vocal when Russia tried to pressure the Ukraine, a state which is not even a EU member.

Your insinuations of a new Molotov-Ribbentropp pact is likewise stupid. Germany has no interest in territorial gains and what is Germany to gain by losing its influence in the Baltics and Hungary?

A great power needs to be able to use military force to defend its vital interests. Europe does not have the will to, for example, replace the United States as a guarantor of Middle Eastern oil supplies, or to preserve a balance of power in Asia. It frankly would be unable to operate in any significant way outside its own continent, with exceptions for France acting alone in a peripheral fashion.

You should however note that Efforts are made to do so. For example, one of the requirements for the new ships for the Navy was that they have to be able to operate in foreign waters, with long endurance etc. The Navy even sold them to parliament as "if pirates attack in Somalia, the Navy has to be able to stop them" etc.

As for Asia, Germany is expanding into there as well, what with the recent agreements/trade pacts with India and China.

I do not have the time or inclination to do significant research for the entire 40 year span of NATO's Cold War existence, but I have seen a great many sources reference the disparity in military spending as a percentage of GDP. The 3.5% of collective European GDP hides significant disparities between European countries, with the British and French typically spending higher and the smaller countries of NATO barely getting to 3%, or even going lower. West Germany, despite being the most threatened state, rarely spent more than 3% of GNP according to figures here.

THat is quite alright, however why should the US spending automatically be assumed to be the minimum required for a great power? If you do not want to have the capability to fight two/three wars or invade two foreign countries at once, that money is far better spent bolstering the economy or providing for the citizens.

Could Europe have brought about the resolution to Bosnia by itself? Could it have faced down Serbia, flush with at least rhetorical Russian support, with its own resources? I think it very unlikely.

Probably, yes. The capability to invade the country was there, people were just not willing to go to full-blown war.

And meh. The French have also been implicated in protecting Serbian war criminals, and Srebrenica showed just how effective European "peacekeepers" are by themselves when it comes to facing down an enemy more formidable than African tribal militias.

Others have dealt with that already, but I'll just note that the american record against African tribal militias isn't exactly that great to start with.

[someone_else]

The days of any major power being able to easily cross a sea to kick someones ass while maintaining a largely peacetime economy are over. Only the Americans can do that now.

That's what I was hinting at. Ok, you can project a modicum of power with european carrier groups, but in general we lack staying power since none has the sheer amount of cash on hand to keep going any kind of real war (unless reconverting the whole economy ala WWII).

The main reason none wants to land european troops in Lybia. To do something for real, you need to send army and be ready for a tremendous economic hit. Aircrafts don't win wars on their own.

The only "major military powers" left after the USSR's death are US and maybe China. All others can at most do joint-forces and fight defensively. That's not a "major military power" in my book (although it is maybe a personal opinion). They can be the top 5 but it just means that more or less the rest of the world sucks balls.

The guy in the article is bitching about this simple lapalissian fact. "oh, we have to do all on our own in NATO!!!!" "you sux N000bz!!!".

[Lonestar]

The guy in the article is bitching about this simple lapalissian fact. "oh, we have to do all on our own in NATO!!!!" "you sux N000bz!!!".

"The guy in the article" is the American Secretary of Defense, who is frustrated by the Euros inability to fight their way out of wet paper sacks without the US kicking in the door.

[K. A. Pital]

NATO dies, big deal. I never liked it. A union created only for the sole purpose of "containing Russia" which later went on to meddle in civil wars and, partly, invade nations in the Middle East which was even more batshit freaking crazy and unrelated to Russia at all.

Less interventionism = less opportunities for imperialism. If First World nations become weak and unable to destroy Third World nations at will, the Third World would be able to develop without constantly looking over their shoulder and thinking "Oh, what the G-whatever thinks about my nation? Oh, should I develop WMDs or should I not? And if I don't develop WMDs, will they invade us or not?"

Europe has lost all its colonies and thus has lost all rights to meddle in the affairs of any independent sovereign nations. The USA likewise. They can't deal with it and sometimes it bites them hard in the ass; the French still keep meddling in Africa, and in general Europe seems to be completely unrepentant about its behaviour, just as the USA is. But decolonization and "desuperpowerization" (mwahahah!) should go on; the final step in that would be the elimination of any and all structures powerful enough to act as a new collective colonizer or occupier; of which NATO is one of the strongest.

Next step should eliminate all other transnational unions, large militaries should wither away and get replaced by nuclear arsenals in all nations big and small - and we'll have world peace, occasionally broken by minor irrelevant conflicts. However, nobody would be strong enough to take over anybody, and so this is the endgame. Also, kittens.

Sad day for NATO = good day for mankind.

[Thanas]

I suppose you will next also argue for the destruction of China and Russia?

[The Romulan Republic]

NATO dies, big deal. I never liked it. A union created only for the sole purpose of "containing Russia" which later went on to meddle in civil wars and, partly, invade nations in the Middle East which was even more batshit freaking crazy and unrelated to Russia at all.

Given that Soviet Russia was a brutal dictatorship, containing it was a worthy goal. Some of the means used to do so crossed ethical lines, but the goal itself was justified in my opinion. There is also such a thing as justified intervention- I have no problem with meddling in the affairs of another nation to prevent genocide.

Less interventionism = less opportunities for imperialism. If First World nations become weak and unable to destroy Third World nations at will, the Third World would be able to develop without constantly looking over their shoulder and thinking "Oh, what the G-whatever thinks about my nation? Oh, should I develop WMDs or should I not? And if I don't develop WMDs, will they invade us or not?"

I am fine with third world countries developing without fear of first world control or aggression.

Europe has lost all its colonies and thus has lost all rights to meddle in the affairs of any independent sovereign nations. The USA likewise. They can't deal with it and sometimes it bites them hard in the ass; the French still keep meddling in Africa, and in general Europe seems to be completely unrepentant about its behaviour, just as the USA is. But decolonization and "desuperpowerization" (mwahahah!) should go on; the final step in that would be the elimination of any and all structures powerful enough to act as a new collective colonizer or occupier; of which NATO is one of the strongest.

And also the loss of any means to step in and prevent genocide?

Next step should eliminate all other transnational unions, large militaries should wither away and get replaced by nuclear arsenals in all nations big and small - and we'll have world peace, occasionally broken by minor irrelevant conflicts. However, nobody would be strong enough to take over anybody, and so this is the endgame. Also, kittens.

Are you serious? Relying on a nuclear deterrent to prevent conflict depends on all parties being rational and all systems being immune to accidental launches, which I believe have nearly happened on a number of occassions historically. I guess you have far more faith in human rationality and the infallibility of the system than I do.

Treating nuclear weaponry as the be all and end all of warfare is insane. Another attempt to find a simplistic solution to complex problems that is ultimately broken.

[Lonestar]

I suppose you will next also argue for the destruction of China and Russia?

I...I have no strong feelings either way about Russia and China.


EDIT: aannnnnddd I see that you were probably responded to Stas. Don't mind me, posting while sober again.

[Kane Starkiller]

NATO dies, big deal. I never liked it. A union created only for the sole purpose of "containing Russia" which later went on to meddle in civil wars and, partly, invade nations in the Middle East which was even more batshit freaking crazy and unrelated to Russia at all.

Less interventionism = less opportunities for imperialism. If First World nations become weak and unable to destroy Third World nations at will, the Third World would be able to develop without constantly looking over their shoulder and thinking "Oh, what the G-whatever thinks about my nation? Oh, should I develop WMDs or should I not? And if I don't develop WMDs, will they invade us or not?"

Europe has lost all its colonies and thus has lost all rights to meddle in the affairs of any independent sovereign nations. The USA likewise. They can't deal with it and sometimes it bites them hard in the ass; the French still keep meddling in Africa, and in general Europe seems to be completely unrepentant about its behaviour, just as the USA is. But decolonization and "desuperpowerization" (mwahahah!) should go on; the final step in that would be the elimination of any and all structures powerful enough to act as a new collective colonizer or occupier; of which NATO is one of the strongest.

Next step should eliminate all other transnational unions, large militaries should wither away and get replaced by nuclear arsenals in all nations big and small - and we'll have world peace, occasionally broken by minor irrelevant conflicts. However, nobody would be strong enough to take over anybody, and so this is the endgame. Also, kittens.

Sad day for NATO = good day for mankind.

The reason NATO is weak is because its main member states are strong not because they are weak. During the Cold War Germany was reduced to a rump state and Soviets were less than 200km away from Ruhr. Combined with the fact that Germany wasn't fully sovereign obviously they had no choice but to seek protection from US and in return be accommodating to US demands. US itself had containing USSR as a top priority and thus was willing to commit a large contingent of forces in defending Western Europe.

Today Russian economy is 75% that of Germany and 15% that of US. Containing Russia is no longer a top priority for either of the two countries and are no longer drawn into a close alliance under a shadow of a common threat. So NATO will inevitably weaken and fade but that is only because Russia can barely hold its own individually with UK, France or Germany.

So if you think that weakening NATO is a sign of a weakening Germany, France, UK and US you're in for a surprise. It is precisely their strength and Russian weakness that makes NATO unimportant.

[Thanas]

I normally disagree on a regular basis with Kane Starkiller, but he is IMO completely correct here. Nato lacks a common threat, which means that fractures are no longer gushed over in the name of containing the bear from the east, who by now pretty much lacks all his teeth.

[K. A. Pital]

To the complete and utter lack of surprise for many in this thread, I could argue for the destruction of any nation-state at will. As a communist, the very concept of nation-state feels to me alien and tribalistic, an atavism of a primitive age and a general symptom of apish barbarism. So Russia and China have no greater right to exist than NATO. Well, other than they are poorer. And I always should take the side of the poorer. It's usually morally right, bar a few exceptions.

As for "justified intervention" - the First World commited so much genocide and mass murder on its own historically that it lost any right to anything. At all.

[Thanas]

So you agree with the concept of intergenerational, historical guilt laid upon the children's children? Because that is the only way I can think you can justify that viewpoint.

[Kane Starkiller]

To the complete and utter lack of surprise for many in this thread, I could argue for the destruction of any nation-state at will. As a communist, the very concept of nation-state feels to me alien and tribalistic, an atavism of a primitive age and a general symptom of apish barbarism. So Russia and China have no greater right to exist than NATO. Well, other than they are poorer. And I always should take the side of the poorer. It's usually morally right, bar a few exceptions.

As for "justified intervention" - the First World commited so much genocide and mass murder on its own historically that it lost any right to anything. At all.
To the complete and utter lack of surprise for many in this thread, I could argue for the destruction of any nation-state at will. As a communist, the very concept of nation-state feels to me alien and tribalistic, an atavism of a primitive age and a general symptom of apish barbarism. So Russia and China have no greater right to exist than NATO. Well, other than they are poorer. And I always should take the side of the poorer. It's usually morally right, bar a few exceptions.

As for "justified intervention" - the First World commited so much genocide and mass murder on its own historically that it lost any right to anything. At all.

Why would nation-state be primitive or barbaric? Obviously many countries define nation based on ethnicity which can only be attained by birth which is definitely tribalistic however not all countries are like that. We need look no further than US. Ethnic groups like Germans, French, English, Italian, Irish, Poles which warred for centuries in Europe came to US and intermingled and created a new nation:Americans.
For a long time this only applied to whites but recently even black or "brown" people are being more and more successfully assimilated into the American "nation".
Nation definition in US (and not only US to be sure) is moving forward not backwards. Why exactly would that need to be destroyed?
And after destruction you would replace nation states and transnational unions with with what exactly? City states?

Furthermore why do you say that you as a communist find nation state primitive? Is there something about communism that supersedes nationalism? Every single multi-ethnic communist country fell apart:USSR, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia which I had the honor of watching from inside. Didn't see the communism doing much to deal with interethnic tensions or facilitate assimilation during its 50-70 year reign. How many Kazakhs, Uzbeks or Turkmens immigrated to Moscow, St.Petersburg or Kiev during the communist rule? Capitalist New York was a melting pot of races and cultures, communist Moscow meanwhile remained squeaky clean ethnic Russian.

Then there is your peculiar idea that being poor is in and of itself a virtue and that somehow poor nations have more of a right to exist because they are poor. How does that work? We can feel compassion for poor countries that were victims of some more powerful country but poverty itself doesn't make them "better".
What exactly makes places like Somalia, Sudan, North Korea or Rwanda virtuous or worth preserving more than US or Western European countries?

Going back to your previous statement that you would like to see all transnational unions destroyed I seem to remember you supporting Belarus-Russia union. In fact I remember you generally supporting USSR reunification and expanding Russian sphere of influence to Ukraine. It seems to me that every time you argue for destruction of something it involves US or NATO or "the West" or all three. It's not really difficult to discern your real agenda here regardless of you trying to pass it off as some new-age anationalist communism or whatever.

[someone_else]

"The guy in the article" is the American Secretary of Defense, who is frustrated by the Euros inability to fight their way out of wet paper sacks without the US kicking in the door.

Wrong. None has enough cash to keep up an army able to defend its foreign economic interests. Quaddafi is a threat to economics, not to our population. That's why most nations don't want to spend a lot on a war with him. A real threat would receive much more attention.

The point is that US thinks that "defending foreign economic interests" = "defending the nation" (it's an imperialistic way of looking at the world, and it's fine if you have the money), for most european countries that's a luxury.
But it's not necessarily a bad thing.

[Stark]

It's called the free market. If America is always willing to invade people with the slightest provocation, why would anyone else in NATO bother to maintain a large standing army? If America started saying 'no' instead of crying about it like a sissy girl, maybe they'd see changes, or maybe Europe would just be more peaceful.

I thought being the greatest military in history was something the Americans LIKED.

[K. A. Pital]

How many Kazakhs, Uzbeks or Turkmens immigrated to Moscow, St.Petersburg or Kiev during the communist rule?

Lots. But more of them emigrate now, because industry is destroyed in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. Not so many Turkmens. Their Man-God closed the borders.

In fact I remember you generally supporting USSR reunification and expanding Russian sphere of influence to Ukraine.

Meh. The USSR is just a soft spot of mine. However, at no point I would disagree that the USSR was a superpower and thus an imperialist entity in and of itself. Logically, as being opposed to all imperialism, I wouldn't stop at opposing my own nation.

Besides, I have argued against Russia's army becoming more powerful, because Russia's current elites do not deserve to be able to project any imperialistic influence. Neither do any elites.

I understand that this is a bit idealistic, but so what?

And after destruction you would replace nation states and transnational unions with with what exactly? City states?

World government, ideally. Failing that, nations armed to the teeth so that one can't invade the other

[Simon_Jester]

"The guy in the article" is the American Secretary of Defense, who is frustrated by the Euros inability to fight their way out of wet paper sacks without the US kicking in the door.

Wrong. None has enough cash to keep up an army able to defend its foreign economic interests. Quaddafi is a threat to economics, not to our population. That's why most nations don't want to spend a lot on a war with him. A real threat would receive much more attention.

There is a legitimate catch to that- you need the physical hardware to pay attention to a real threat. If you haven't got the ships, the men, and the weapons, having the motive to fight doesn't do you very much good.

When Americans criticize Europe on the issue of defense, a lot of it is motivated by the idea that Europe lacks the means to defend itself. Not simply because it doesn't fight wars of choice- no shame in that, probably the opposite. But because a nation which always declines to fight in wars of choice is in some danger of being underequipped to fight a war which is forced upon it.

That's not inevitable, mind, but it's a cautionary tale. If European air forces are running out of munitions after a short campaign against Libya, how well would they perform against a larger, more capable enemy? Or one which wasn't in such convenient striking range of their own airbases?

The point is that US thinks that "defending foreign economic interests" = "defending the nation" (it's an imperialistic way of looking at the world, and it's fine if you have the money), for most european countries that's a luxury.

Yes, this is important- it's a mental short circuit so common in the American right, and which so easily spreads to the center and left, that it's almost become an unexamined assumption of American politics, this premise that yes it is our business what happens far away. But the cautionary point stands- best check to make sure your inventory of bombs is adequate to fight the really important war that may one day be forced on you, if you're finding yourself short of bombs to fight a war of choice on the far side of the Mediterranean.

[K. A. Pital]

Bleh. Some more time to deal with Kane's claims here, so I'll try my best.

The reason NATO is weak is because its main member states are strong not because they are weak. ... Today Russian economy is 75% that of Germany and 15% that of US. Containing Russia is no longer a top priority for either of the two countries and are no longer drawn into a close alliance under a shadow of a common threat. So NATO will inevitably weaken and fade but that is only because Russia can barely hold its own individually with UK, France or Germany.

You are obviously mistaken here. It is not NATO states who are becoming stronger militarily (with the obvious exception of Germany that became stronger as a nation due to reunification; but I am not sure it became more militarized than the former West Germany was). It is Russia becoming weaker at a faster rate than NATO member states are weakening. France and Britain are nowhere close to their Cold War capabilities. So all nations after 1991 pursued a policy of armed forces reduction and reduced spending, to my knowledge. That is definetely becoming weaker, not stronger. But since Russia is even weaker and there's now a host of buffer states between Russia and Europe, clearly it was, is and remains a fully logical course of things. NATO is weakening as a structure in general, and its member states are militarily weaker as well.

Why would nation-state be primitive or barbaric? Obviously many countries define nation based on ethnicity which can only be attained by birth which is definitely tribalistic however not all countries are like that. We need look no further than US. Ethnic groups like Germans, French, English, Italian, Irish, Poles which warred for centuries in Europe came to US and intermingled and created a new nation:Americans. For a long time this only applied to whites but recently even black or "brown" people are being more and more successfully assimilated into the American "nation".

The mixed ethnicities actually do not bring a greater tolerance or reduce nationalism in a nation. A multi-ethnic nation, the US has commited war crimes and mass murder during the American-Philippines war, for example. At no point the many ethnicities helped to curb a new, "American" nationalism. Neither does it help now. American blacks and American whites may surprisingly unite in Islamophobia, hatred of Arabs and other disgusting things. On the other hand, often ethnically monolithic nation-states like Finland, Sweden, Norway etc. demonstrate greater tolerance, understanding and very low levels of nationalism, jingoism and militarism. The nation-state is primitive regardless of how many ethnicities it encompasses; the very idea that people inhabiting some place should be loyal to "that place" leads to nationalism. Nationalism will exist until nation-states exist. I think you can't argue that the US, a multi-ethnic nation, is heavily nationalistic.

Furthermore why do you say that you as a communist find nation state primitive? Is there something about communism that supersedes nationalism?

Communism is internationalist - it should (unless you're being a hypocrite, and I'm not) consider all races, all nations and all people as equals. It should disparage any thoughts of racial or national superiority. Racial or national. Because you could drop off the racism, but keep the nationalism - it wouldn't help at all. Racism will be reborn in nationalism, except this time it will be directed at "those pesky foreigners" - non-Americans in the case of America, for example.

Every single multi-ethnic communist country fell apart:USSR, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia which I had the honor of watching from inside. Didn't see the communism doing much to deal with interethnic tensions or facilitate assimilation during its 50-70 year reign.

Of course they fell apart - due to nationalism in a very large part, as I'm sure you'll agree. Just because apish instincts, racism and nationalism triumphed in the end, leading to the ethnic cleansings in former Yugoslavia, the Caucasus, Central Asia and other places, leading to crazy fascist and nationalist regimes rising here and there, it does not mean these things are to be lauded or accepted. Just because humans share a common ancestor with apes does not mean we should emulate the behaviour of the ape.

Then there is your peculiar idea that being poor is in and of itself a virtue and that somehow poor nations have more of a right to exist because they are poor. How does that work? We can feel compassion for poor countries that were victims of some more powerful country but poverty itself doesn't make them "better". What exactly makes places like Somalia, Sudan, North Korea or Rwanda virtuous or worth preserving more than US or Western European countries?

Nothing makes them more virtous or worth preserving; however, naturally, as poorer nations, they are less capable of imperialism. It goes without saying that Rwanda cannot commit imperialism even nowhere near on the scale the USA commits it ever so often. And the British, French and other empires commited it throughout history. So it is not the poverty that is a virtue; but the poorer, the underdog, the small nation is never capable of as much imperialistic wars as a rich First World nation.

That's like asking me why I would favor the hobo and not the oligarch. Simple - the oligarch causes a lot more suffering, even if the hobo is a drunkard and gets into street fights, he can't deal as much damage as the oligarch. Replace hobo with Somalia and the oligarch with USA. The hobo isn't a good guy, but fighting hobos and ignoring oligarchs is the most fucking stupid thing to do.

It's like why Assange centers on the USA and not other, smaller and less powerful nations. More power - more responsibility, duh.

Going back to your previous statement that you would like to see all transnational unions destroyed I seem to remember you supporting Belarus-Russia union. In fact I remember you generally supporting USSR reunification and expanding Russian sphere of influence to Ukraine. It seems to me that every time you argue for destruction of something it involves US or NATO or "the West" or all three. It's not really difficult to discern your real agenda here regardless of you trying to pass it off as some new-age anationalist communism or whatever.

Yes, my agenda is that Russian oligarchy should control the world and turn you all into wage-slaves. I'm sure that's an adequate position for me. Wait, wasn't it me who was protesting about Russian oligarchs using the union of Russia and Belarus to strong-arm Belarus into agreements and take over their industries? That was quite recently I believe. Heh.

[Thanas]

So you agree with the concept of intergenerational, historical guilt laid upon the children's children? Because that is the only way I can think you can justify that viewpoint.

Nothing makes them more virtous or worth preserving; however, naturally, as poorer nations, they are less capable of imperialism. It goes without saying that Rwanda cannot commit imperialism even nowhere near on the scale the USA commits it ever so often. And the British, French and other empires commited it throughout history. So it is not the poverty that is a virtue; but the poorer, the underdog, the small nation is never capable of as much imperialistic wars as a rich First World nation.

That is a very socialistic mindset which kinda disregards that the death toll of various african nations killing each other directly or indirectly (like corruption preventing medicine reaching people) etc. is far higher than that of any nationalistic intervention.

[K. A. Pital]

So you agree with the concept of intergenerational, historical guilt laid upon the children's children? Because that is the only way I can think you can justify that viewpoint.

Actually, international law agrees with me. Germany paid reparations to entire nations. Africa and India and many others were seeking reparations from Britain.

If your government is continous (in case of Britain and USA, two major imperialist hyperpowers of the XIX-XX century, it clearly is), or claims succession from the prior government (Russia from the USSR) - yes, you can claim for reparations. Yes, guilt falls upon the children. Like if you borrow too much today, your children will be debt slaves. If you kill Africans today, tomorrow your children will pay for that.

You disagree?

That is a very socialistic mindset which kinda disregards that the death toll of various african nations killing each other directly or indirectly (like corruption preventing medicine reaching people) etc. is far higher than that of any nationalistic intervention

None of them even barely came close to the results of British imperialism in India. And Britain was just ONE industrialized nation. Together industrial nations fucked over so many people counting them up would be a dreadful task.

[Thanas]

If your government is continous (in case of Britain and USA, two major imperialist hyperpowers of the XIX-XX century, it clearly is), or claims succession from the prior government (Russia from the USSR) - yes, you can claim for reparations. Yes, guilt falls upon the children. Like if you borrow too much today, your children will be debt slaves. If you kill Africans today, tomorrow your children will pay for that.

You disagree?

I was talking about mindsets - like you claimed that because the ancestors did something in the 19th century, people of the 21st lose the right to act?

None of them even barely came close to the results of British imperialism in India. And Britain was just ONE industrialized nation. Together industrial nations fucked over so many people counting them up would be a dreadful task.

Because of course any move by today's European states = 18th century British?

[Kane Starkiller]

You are obviously mistaken here. It is not NATO states who are becoming stronger militarily (with the obvious exception of Germany that became stronger as a nation due to reunification; but I am not sure it became more militarized than the former West Germany was). It is Russia becoming weaker at a faster rate than NATO member states are weakening. France and Britain are nowhere close to their Cold War capabilities. So all nations after 1991 pursued a policy of armed forces reduction and reduced spending, to my knowledge. That is definetely becoming weaker, not stronger. But since Russia is even weaker and there's now a host of buffer states between Russia and Europe, clearly it was, is and remains a fully logical course of things. NATO is weakening as a structure in general, and its member states are militarily weaker as well.

Obviously I was not talking only about military dimension of strength and not only in terms of absolute strength but in terms of relative strength as relevant to NATOs reason of existence.
Globally European powers have definitely lost strength in relations to many countries, US being the first example. I provided charts in the other thread showing Germany and France going from 26.9% and 19.9% of US GDP in 1975 to 18.1% and 15% in 2008 respectively.
This only underscores my point: increase of relative and absolute US power in relation to France and Germany, decrease of relative and absolute Russian power in relation to France and Germany and increase of relative power and security for France and Germany is making NATO obsolete.
However while German military power had declined it has done so by choice not inevitably because of economic collapse like Russia. Therefore should Germany feel the need to expand its forces in the future it has the economic and technological potential to do so far more than Russia.

The mixed ethnicities actually do not bring a greater tolerance or reduce nationalism in a nation. A multi-ethnic nation, the US has commited war crimes and mass murder during the American-Philippines war, for example. At no point the many ethnicities helped to curb a new, "American" nationalism. Neither does it help now. American blacks and American whites may surprisingly unite in Islamophobia, hatred of Arabs and other disgusting things. On the other hand, often ethnically monolithic nation-states like Finland, Sweden, Norway etc. demonstrate greater tolerance, understanding and very low levels of nationalism, jingoism and militarism. The nation-state is primitive regardless of how many ethnicities it encompasses; the very idea that people inhabiting some place should be loyal to "that place" leads to nationalism. Nationalism will exist until nation-states exist. I think you can't argue that the US, a multi-ethnic nation, is heavily nationalistic.

No one said that a multiethnic nation will eliminate all jingoism and warmongery. But the relations between people of various ethnic and racial groups in US is today far better than in most other countries including Russia and China. The issue is not whether or not US commited crimes during the American-Philippines war but how well does US integrate current Fillippino immigrants compared to other countries today. US conquest of Native Americans might have been no more gentle than Russian conquest of Caucasian people but how each country is treating them today is what makes the difference. Did you see a protest in New York about stopping the immigration of Native Americans lately?
US interventions stem from its power and global interests and not all are wrong.
Also there is nothing wrong with people being loyal to their home countries in the sense that they will not run away if an enemy is attacking them or they won't sell secrets for money or won't help outside forces attack the country for money. At the same time they can criticize their country if it does something wrong.

Communism is internationalist - it should (unless you're being a hypocrite, and I'm not) consider all races, all nations and all people as equals. It should disparage any thoughts of racial or national superiority. Racial or national. Because you could drop off the racism, but keep the nationalism - it wouldn't help at all. Racism will be reborn in nationalism, except this time it will be directed at "those pesky foreigners" - non-Americans in the case of America, for example.

Communism being an economic system doesn't say anything more about nations than capitalism does. However I'm not interested in theory or how you would like communism to be but practice. In practice communist countries weren't defined only by their economy but their political organization and their total inability to deal with interethnic tensions constructively. They simply barred all public discourse and ethnic animosities, rather than being resolved, were simply frozen in time until they finally exploded in the early 90s, in fact even before USSR was actually dissolved various ethnic groups started clashing.
Your criticism of American performance with assimilating foreigners seems to be confined to analyzing the speeches of fringe conservative groups rather than actual data about the multi racial and multi ethnic character and large numbers of current immigrants.

Of course they fell apart - due to nationalism in a very large part, as I'm sure you'll agree. Just because apish instincts, racism and nationalism triumphed in the end, leading to the ethnic cleansings in former Yugoslavia, the Caucasus, Central Asia and other places, leading to crazy fascist and nationalist regimes rising here and there, it does not mean these things are to be lauded or accepted. Just because humans share a common ancestor with apes does not mean we should emulate the behaviour of the ape.

It's not that nationalism triumphed it's that it was never dealt with since no real social issue can be dealt with if there is no free speech. Combined with obviously imperialistic communist policies like transferring ethnic Russians into baltic states and Central Asia while at the same time discouraging the immigration of Central Asians and Caucasians into Slavic parts of USSR and the stage was set for an implosion.

Nothing makes them more virtous or worth preserving; however, naturally, as poorer nations, they are less capable of imperialism. It goes without saying that Rwanda cannot commit imperialism even nowhere near on the scale the USA commits it ever so often. And the British, French and other empires commited it throughout history. So it is not the poverty that is a virtue; but the poorer, the underdog, the small nation is never capable of as much imperialistic wars as a rich First World nation.

That's like asking me why I would favor the hobo and not the oligarch. Simple - the oligarch causes a lot more suffering, even if the hobo is a drunkard and gets into street fights, he can't deal as much damage as the oligarch. Replace hobo with Somalia and the oligarch with USA. The hobo isn't a good guy, but fighting hobos and ignoring oligarchs is the most fucking stupid thing to do.

It's like why Assange centers on the USA and not other, smaller and less powerful nations. More power - more responsibility, duh.

Except of course hobo is just as likely to knife you for ten bucks. What difference does it make that Rwandan genocide wasn't imperialism? You are still dead. I don't know about you but I would rather live under British rule and pay tribute to the British King than to live in Rwanda, Somalia, North Korea or Sudan.

Yes, my agenda is that Russian oligarchy should control the world and turn you all into wage-slaves. I'm sure that's an adequate position for me. Wait, wasn't it me who was protesting about Russian oligarchs using the union of Russia and Belarus to strong-arm Belarus into agreements and take over their industries? That was quite recently I believe. Heh.

I never said that you support the Russian government nor is that in any way relevant to my argument which is that based on your previous posts you clearly support "Russia" as a geopolitical entity and that your hopes for the destruction of US (or West) are not a result of some kind of anationalist sensibility but out of very practical realization that it will benefit Russia.