Non western countries

[Dolan]

NATO is kind of a walking zombie thing. When France sends a ship to support Greece in the conflict with Turkey over local energy reserves, you know there's not much NATO left.

[chris1089]

North Atlantic treaty organisation? Its initial intent was mutual protection against the soviets, but that doesn't prevent it from also providing mutual protection against other threats. Sadly the Europeans don't seem to care about defending their country anymore so I wouldn't blame the Americans if they walk out on it.

[harcha]

Sadly the Europeans don't seem to care about defending their country anymore so I wouldn't blame the Americans if they walk out on it.

oh we care. thing is it doesn't really work... just look at crimea

[princeofcarthage]

Sadly the Europeans don't seem to care about defending their country anymore so I wouldn't blame the Americans if they walk out on it.

oh we care. thing is it doesn't really work... just look at crimea

Crimea/Ukraine was never part of NATO. NATO has no obligation whatsoever to defend Ukraine. One could also argue that US/NATO has no right to interfere in matters of other countries. Regardless of all those things there is a major Russian naval base and it's only access to black sea. Russia will fire all its nuclear weapons before giving up such strategic position. There is not much US or rather any country that can do anything.

[Dolan]

The Crimea situation kinda exposed that there is no such thing as "international order" or "international law".
The UN was like: WE PROTEST VEHEMENTLY, WE DON"T RECOGNISE THIS

And Putin was like "ok".

[fightinfrenchman]

The Crimea situation kinda exposed that there is no such thing as "international order" or "international law".

I mean they are still things. I don't think anyone is claiming that the phrase "international order" means that the world is very calm and orderly, and no one is saying that "international law" means that no one can do anything illegal

[Dolan]

If what is internationally illegal is defined by ppl who can't enforce it, it's basically legal mmorpg.

It's like those ppl who claim they own parcels on the moon and trade them online. If there's anyone who believes them, it works.
Wanna buy some moon real estate? It's guaranteed by the Global Council of International Law: https://lunarregistry.com/

[fightinfrenchman]

That doesn't mean it doesn't exist

[Dolan]

If it only applies to a few countries that agree to abide by those rules, then it's not really international law, it's more like regional law.

Or, as someone called it, limited liability multilateralism.

[fightinfrenchman]

Just because laws aren't enforced doesn't make them not real. For example, the laws Trump breaks regularly

[Dolan]

That's different, it's national jurisdiction, so once Trump is out of power, he can be prosecuted.
But if none of the states who guarantee "international law" has any interest in sending troops to remove the Russian occupation of Crimea, then it means they have de facto recognised they have no interest in enforcing that "international law". They can "protest" as much as they want, as long as their deeds speak for themselves.
That "international law" is only enforceable as long as those countries upholding it have an actual interest in sending troops to defend it. Otherwise that "law" remains unapplied in Crimea's case forever.

[fightinfrenchman]

The point is that he won't be prosecuted for those things, even though he theoretically could be. It's technically possible for states to enforce international law, they just choose not to. That doesn't make it not real

[Dolan]

It's not even international law, Russia doesn't recognise that Crimea is part of Ukraine. So who is part of that "international consensus" that defines whether Crimea is part of Ukraine or not? Who defines when a law is international and when it's not?
If the consensus includes France, the US and the UK, is it international law? If it includes China too, does it become more international?
It's just limited multilateralism that produces limited effects. It's not international at all.

China, Iran and Russia could form a consensus that is different from the one reached by the US, UK and France. And then nothing happens, because they think it's not worth starting a war with Russia over Crimea.
So no "international law" on Crimea gets agreed on or applied.

So this idea that a certain international law on Crimea exists is only recognised in certain countries. If you ask people in Russia or in its allied countries, they'll say there is "international consensus" between them that Crimea is part of Russia.

[fightinfrenchman]

I mean yeah, it's ultimately based on what good states agree upon. It's still international even if not every state agrees on it

[Dolan]

If there are different consensuses reached between countries (inter-national), then there are different sets of international laws.
Even moreso when the rules they enforce are different. Russia enforces a different consensus on what international law is in Crimea and that's the de facto international order.

Another example is how Arab states don't recognise the universality of the "universal" declaration on human rights so they made their own Islamic version of it. Same for China which doesn't recognise some parts of it either. So there are no actual universal human rights, it's just a bunch of countries that call it that way, because they're Western supremacists.

[duckzilla]

Sadly the Europeans don't seem to care about defending their country anymore so I wouldn't blame the Americans if they walk out on it.

Difficult assessment. Firstly, "Europeans" is quite a bunch of nations. I'm quite sure that few people would deny French, Polish, Baltic, Danish, or Greek care about defending their country. So your assessment is at least partially wrong. Secondly, even countries like Germany, which is often criticized for spending less than 2% of GDP on its military and refraining from sending its troops into actual combat, do their job within the NATO context very well. Instead of sending military units or increasing spending directly targeted at combat, a lot of tasks surrounding the NATO are infrastructural, logistic, or organizational jobs. Finally, "defending their country" leaves ample room for interpretation. In a Cold War context, this is likely to mean to specifically defend the international borders of NATO's member states. None of them is under attack currently, so there is not increased urgency to defend something.

The Afghanistan War can serve as an example of the entire NATO taking action after a (questionable) attack on a NATO member. Even the more hesitating members send troops to Afghanistan. Since there are only very limited other examples, I would say that based on past events the NATO looks like it is in proper shape to do what it is supposed to do.

[duckzilla]

If there are different consensuses reached between countries (inter-national), then there are different international laws.
Even moreso when the rules they enforce are different. Russia enforces a different consensus on what international law is in Crimea and that's the de facto international order.

spoiler

[chris1089]

Sadly the Europeans don't seem to care about defending their country anymore so I wouldn't blame the Americans if they walk out on it.

oh we care. thing is it doesn't really work... just look at crimea

See Carthage's first point. Latvia is part of NATO, Ukraine isn't so it's not really comparable. However I'm not sure how much faith I have in the members of NATO to protect one another.

[princeofcarthage]

Sadly the Europeans don't seem to care about defending their country anymore so I wouldn't blame the Americans if they walk out on it.

oh we care. thing is it doesn't really work... just look at crimea

See Carthage's first point. Latvia is part of NATO, Ukraine isn't so it's not really comparable. However I'm not sure how much faith I have in the members of NATO to protect one another.

I am pretty sure if Major countries were to get attacked NATO will respond, however certain newer and smaller members were to get attacked its bit tricky but still most likely NATO will defend. Attacking NATO is still a red line Russia wouldn't cross imo.

[chris1089]

Show hidden quotes

Sadly the Europeans don't seem to care about defending their country anymore so I wouldn't blame the Americans if they walk out on it.

oh we care. thing is it doesn't really work... just look at crimea

See Carthage's first point. Latvia is part of NATO, Ukraine isn't so it's not really comparable. However I'm not sure how much faith I have in the members of NATO to protect one another.

I am pretty sure if Major countries were to get attacked NATO will respond, however certain newer and smaller members were to get attacked its bit tricky but still most likely NATO will defend. Attacking NATO is still a red line Russia wouldn't cross imo.

I think I agree. Not sure how long it will last. It seems like NATO is slowly breaking down.

[occamslightsaber]

Sadly the Europeans don't seem to care about defending their country anymore so I wouldn't blame the Americans if they walk out on it.

Difficult assessment. Firstly, "Europeans" is quite a bunch of nations. I'm quite sure that few people would deny French, Polish, Baltic, Danish, or Greek care about defending their country. So your assessment is at least partially wrong.

I'm honestly puzzled by such unfounded faith in NATO. It's a no-brainer that the French, Polish, Baltic, Danish, Greek or whoever all care about national security; it's their home after all. However, collective security (i.e. defending other countries that share the same interests) is an entirely different matter. For example, how many Germans would be okay with dying in a faraway land to protect America or Romania from a hypothetical Russian invasion as Article 5 requires? Not a whole lot, at least according to this study which shows that more Germans are unwilling than willing to defend the largest contributor to NATO. NATO won't mean anything if the member states aren't willing to follow through on their commitments to each other.

Secondly, even countries like Germany, which is often criticized for spending less than 2% of GDP on its military and refraining from sending its troops into actual combat, do their job within the NATO context very well. Instead of sending military units or increasing spending directly targeted at combat, a lot of tasks surrounding the NATO are infrastructural, logistic, or organizational jobs. Finally, "defending their country" leaves ample room for interpretation. In a Cold War context, this is likely to mean to specifically defend the international borders of NATO's member states. None of them is under attack currently, so there is not increased urgency to defend something.

The Afghanistan War can serve as an example of the entire NATO taking action after a (questionable) attack on a NATO member. Even the more hesitating members send troops to Afghanistan. Since there are only very limited other examples, I would say that based on past events the NATO looks like it is in proper shape to do what it is supposed to do.

In military alliances, infrastructural, logistic or organizational efforts are indeed important, but only as far as those infrastructures and logistics actually exist. This article shows how complacent Germany has gotten with its combat readiness, but the problem is hardly exclusive to Germany. In contrast, Russia undertook a largely successful military modernization program, although it has still been constrained by its basket case economy. NATO also did a piss-poor job planning and coordinating the Libya intervention (the calls to which was led by Britain and France, for the record) to the point that Obama publicly criticized David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy for their lack of follow-up that led to a disaster. NATO relies way too much on American commitment, which is waning not just because of Trump, but also because the US is becoming more concerned with what's happening in Asia. So no, NATO isn't exactly in a proper shape to do what it is supposed to do.

To be fair, it's not exactly unreasonable for Western European countries to become lax with military spending. Even with a revisionist Russia, their territorial integrity isn't really under immediate threat, thanks to what are essentially buffer states in Eastern Europe (not to mention that Russia would be more than content with just Eastern Europe under its sphere of influence). However, military alliance isn't just about defense, it's also about deterrence. Deterrence is what Article 5 is really about; by declaring that an attack on one is an attack on all, it's altering the opposing side's calculations and preventing an attack from occurring in the first place. The point of military buildup is to stop a war before it begins, not to hastily prepare defenses when shit hits the fan. Anyway, if Western European countries are prepared to throw Eastern Europe under the bus to save up on some military spending, they probably shouldn't tout European unity/integration or cry about Trump weakening America's commitment to the region.

[KoenigRother]

lax military spending... we dont even know what efficient or effective warfare would look like on a bigger scale...

[Dolan]

Europe could just ally with Russia and China and invade the USA :​D

Then divide the spoils.

[voigt1240]

Russia is just a thin malnourished bear at this point. Her gdp is 13 times lower than that of the US. With falling oilprices and sanctions on her i don't see her future being too bright or threatening.

[duckzilla]

Putin's disastrous policies force him towards China which exacerbates Russia's demise. Russia does not have any actual allies and is currently torn between resentment of the West and powerlessness with regard to an increasingly potent China directly next to its thinly populated far East.