Not-NATO
I wonder if there is any milage in examining the possibility of a new mutal defence organisation.
A sort of "Not-NATO" if you like.
Membership is exclusively open to any country that has a border with the Russian Federation.
1. Sweden (Kalingrad across the Baltic Sea)
2. Finland
3. Estonia
4. Latvia
5. Lithuania
6. Poland (Kalingrad to the north)
7. Belarus
8. Ukraine
9. Romania (Borders RF across the Black Sea)
10. Bulgaria (Borders RF across the Black Sea)
11. Turkey (Borders RF across the Black Sea)
12. Georgia
13. Azerbaijan
14. Iran (Borders RF across the Caspian Sea)
15. Turkmenistan (Borders RF across the Caspian Sea)
16. Uzbekistan
17. Kyrgyzstan
18. China
19. Mongola
20. Japan (Borders RD via Sea of Okhotsk)
21. United States
Ok, that's a long list...hmm perhaps this won't work.
Maybe just focus on Europe 1-10
Said countries revoke NATO membership, and join their own alliance. Same aims as NATO in terms of mutual defence, but entirely self-governed.
Essentially forming a buffer between NATO and the Russian Federation.
NATO no longer on RF's doorstep, but a sizable and united NATO-replacement is, to counter any RF aggression.
Then again, Putin has done more to advance future country membership of NATO than any other initative NATO have could have dreamed of themselves.
# slow clap.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago
North West |
"Not-NATO
I wonder if there is any milage in examining the possibility of a new mutal defence organisation.
A sort of "Not-NATO" if you like.
Membership is exclusively open to any country that has a border with the Russian Federation.
1. Sweden (Kalingrad across the Baltic Sea)
2. Finland
3. Estonia
4. Latvia
5. Lithuania
6. Poland (Kalingrad to the north)
7. Belarus
8. Ukraine
9. Romania (Borders RF across the Black Sea)
10. Bulgaria (Borders RF across the Black Sea)
11. Turkey (Borders RF across the Black Sea)
12. Georgia
13. Azerbaijan
14. Iran (Borders RF across the Caspian Sea)
15. Turkmenistan (Borders RF across the Caspian Sea)
16. Uzbekistan
17. Kyrgyzstan
18. China
19. Mongola
20. Japan (Borders RD via Sea of Okhotsk)
21. United States
Ok, that's a long list...hmm perhaps this won't work.
Maybe just focus on Europe 1-10
Said countries revoke NATO membership, and join their own alliance. Same aims as NATO in terms of mutual defence, but entirely self-governed.
Essentially forming a buffer between NATO and the Russian Federation.
NATO no longer on RF's doorstep, but a sizable and united NATO-replacement is, to counter any RF aggression.
Then again, Putin has done more to advance future country membership of NATO than any other initative NATO have could have dreamed of themselves.
# slow clap.
"
Why? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why ? "
NATO no longer on RF's doorstep, but a sizable and united NATO-replacement is, to counter any RF aggression.
Putin is moaning he doesn't want NATO on his doorstep. So this produces a buffer zone between him and NATO. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Not-NATO
I wonder if there is any milage in examining the possibility of a new mutal defence organisation.
A sort of "Not-NATO" if you like.
Membership is exclusively open to any country that has a border with the Russian Federation.
1. Sweden (Kalingrad across the Baltic Sea)
2. Finland
3. Estonia
4. Latvia
5. Lithuania
6. Poland (Kalingrad to the north)
7. Belarus
8. Ukraine
9. Romania (Borders RF across the Black Sea)
10. Bulgaria (Borders RF across the Black Sea)
11. Turkey (Borders RF across the Black Sea)
12. Georgia
13. Azerbaijan
14. Iran (Borders RF across the Caspian Sea)
15. Turkmenistan (Borders RF across the Caspian Sea)
16. Uzbekistan
17. Kyrgyzstan
18. China
19. Mongola
20. Japan (Borders RD via Sea of Okhotsk)
21. United States
Ok, that's a long list...hmm perhaps this won't work.
Maybe just focus on Europe 1-10
Said countries revoke NATO membership, and join their own alliance. Same aims as NATO in terms of mutual defence, but entirely self-governed.
Essentially forming a buffer between NATO and the Russian Federation.
NATO no longer on RF's doorstep, but a sizable and united NATO-replacement is, to counter any RF aggression.
Then again, Putin has done more to advance future country membership of NATO than any other initative NATO have could have dreamed of themselves.
# slow clap.
Why?"
A Europe centric alliance would be more suitable rather than being told what to do by America, 1000s of miles away
Plus it would act in Europe's interests.
NATO was setup to counter the soviet Union but that's gone, time to evolve into something better
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Not-NATO
I wonder if there is any milage in examining the possibility of a new mutal defence organisation.
A sort of "Not-NATO" if you like.
Membership is exclusively open to any country that has a border with the Russian Federation.
1. Sweden (Kalingrad across the Baltic Sea)
2. Finland
3. Estonia
4. Latvia
5. Lithuania
6. Poland (Kalingrad to the north)
7. Belarus
8. Ukraine
9. Romania (Borders RF across the Black Sea)
10. Bulgaria (Borders RF across the Black Sea)
11. Turkey (Borders RF across the Black Sea)
12. Georgia
13. Azerbaijan
14. Iran (Borders RF across the Caspian Sea)
15. Turkmenistan (Borders RF across the Caspian Sea)
16. Uzbekistan
17. Kyrgyzstan
18. China
19. Mongola
20. Japan (Borders RD via Sea of Okhotsk)
21. United States
Ok, that's a long list...hmm perhaps this won't work.
Maybe just focus on Europe 1-10
Said countries revoke NATO membership, and join their own alliance. Same aims as NATO in terms of mutual defence, but entirely self-governed.
Essentially forming a buffer between NATO and the Russian Federation.
NATO no longer on RF's doorstep, but a sizable and united NATO-replacement is, to counter any RF aggression.
Then again, Putin has done more to advance future country membership of NATO than any other initative NATO have could have dreamed of themselves.
# slow clap.
Why?
A Europe centric alliance would be more suitable rather than being told what to do by America, 1000s of miles away
Plus it would act in Europe's interests.
NATO was setup to counter the soviet Union but that's gone, time to evolve into something better
"
Yes but would Europe centric be mainland Europe or include the UK?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Not-NATO
I wonder if there is any milage in examining the possibility of a new mutal defence organisation.
A sort of "Not-NATO" if you like.
Membership is exclusively open to any country that has a border with the Russian Federation.
1. Sweden (Kalingrad across the Baltic Sea)
2. Finland
3. Estonia
4. Latvia
5. Lithuania
6. Poland (Kalingrad to the north)
7. Belarus
8. Ukraine
9. Romania (Borders RF across the Black Sea)
10. Bulgaria (Borders RF across the Black Sea)
11. Turkey (Borders RF across the Black Sea)
12. Georgia
13. Azerbaijan
14. Iran (Borders RF across the Caspian Sea)
15. Turkmenistan (Borders RF across the Caspian Sea)
16. Uzbekistan
17. Kyrgyzstan
18. China
19. Mongola
20. Japan (Borders RD via Sea of Okhotsk)
21. United States
Ok, that's a long list...hmm perhaps this won't work.
Maybe just focus on Europe 1-10
Said countries revoke NATO membership, and join their own alliance. Same aims as NATO in terms of mutual defence, but entirely self-governed.
Essentially forming a buffer between NATO and the Russian Federation.
NATO no longer on RF's doorstep, but a sizable and united NATO-replacement is, to counter any RF aggression.
Then again, Putin has done more to advance future country membership of NATO than any other initative NATO have could have dreamed of themselves.
# slow clap.
Why?
A Europe centric alliance would be more suitable rather than being told what to do by America, 1000s of miles away
Plus it would act in Europe's interests.
NATO was setup to counter the soviet Union but that's gone, time to evolve into something better
"
Hmmm sounds close to a Euro Army. The Brexiters didn’t like that idea! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why ?
NATO no longer on RF's doorstep, but a sizable and united NATO-replacement is, to counter any RF aggression.
Putin is moaning he doesn't want NATO on his doorstep. So this produces a buffer zone between him and NATO."
Realistically, NATO not being on Russia's borders stops what? Ground troops? Does it stop planes, missiles, drones?
Russia's NIMBY protest is rather hollow with today's technological military. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Why ?
NATO no longer on RF's doorstep, but a sizable and united NATO-replacement is, to counter any RF aggression.
Putin is moaning he doesn't want NATO on his doorstep. So this produces a buffer zone between him and NATO.
Realistically, NATO not being on Russia's borders stops what? Ground troops? Does it stop planes, missiles, drones?
Russia's NIMBY protest is rather hollow with today's technological military."
It isn’t about a buffer zone. If more ex-Soviet territory joins NATO it makes future expansion/annexation impossible and Putin desires the recreation of the Russian Empire expanded back out to USSR borders which was (excepting Finland) the zenith of their territorial extent. He has already lost chance for recreating a Warsaw Pact style set of satellite states. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
1) do countries get to be members of both these fictitious organisations… or do the have to give up membership of NATO…
2) what happens if putin gets ancy and let’s say grab the baltics.. do we move this “not nato” organisation back….
3) Russia wasn’t complaining about boundaries when they had half of Europe under the Warsaw Pact….
What putin misses is Russia’s influence over countries he doesn’t have now… |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
None of this would even be an issue if Clinton and the US had let Russia join NATO in the first place.
But, of course, the US and the rest of the world that cling to their ballsack, had to keep Russia as the evil nuclear super power, helps keep the world population on their fearful toes a bit more than actually COOPERATING WITH THEM! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"1) do countries get to be members of both these fictitious organisations… or do the have to give up membership of NATO…
2) what happens if putin gets ancy and let’s say grab the baltics.. do we move this “not nato” organisation back….
3) Russia wasn’t complaining about boundaries when they had half of Europe under the Warsaw Pact….
What putin misses is Russia’s influence over countries he doesn’t have now…"
He gets asked why he bemoans the fall of the Soviet Union quite often and he says each time “because it made Russian people foreigners overnight”.
There was something very similar that happened once… what was it? Oh, yes, the way Germany was sliced and diced after ww1. And we all know how well that went down.
Maybe some of these things should be though through a bit better, because they seem to keep biting the world on the arse. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why ?
NATO no longer on RF's doorstep, but a sizable and united NATO-replacement is, to counter any RF aggression.
Putin is moaning he doesn't want NATO on his doorstep. So this produces a buffer zone between him and NATO.
Realistically, NATO not being on Russia's borders stops what? Ground troops? Does it stop planes, missiles, drones?
Russia's NIMBY protest is rather hollow with today's technological military.
It isn’t about a buffer zone. If more ex-Soviet territory joins NATO it makes future expansion/annexation impossible and Putin desires the recreation of the Russian Empire expanded back out to USSR borders which was (excepting Finland) the zenith of their territorial extent. He has already lost chance for recreating a Warsaw Pact style set of satellite states. "
Well the original post is clearly about a buffer.
And as much as he's annexed Crimea I have a feeling that's as far as he's likely to get. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Article 45 of the UN charter allows the un to raise an army ( not peace keepers) to take on despots and dictators .can be made up of any members armed forces combined "
Can it be vetoed by the members of the Security Council? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eavenNhellCouple
over a year ago
carrbrook stalybridge |
"Article 45 of the UN charter allows the un to raise an army ( not peace keepers) to take on despots and dictators .can be made up of any members armed forces combined
Can it be vetoed by the members of the Security Council?"
apparently not
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago
milton keynes |
"Not-NATO
I wonder if there is any milage in examining the possibility of a new mutal defence organisation.
A sort of "Not-NATO" if you like.
Membership is exclusively open to any country that has a border with the Russian Federation.
1. Sweden (Kalingrad across the Baltic Sea)
2. Finland
3. Estonia
4. Latvia
5. Lithuania
6. Poland (Kalingrad to the north)
7. Belarus
8. Ukraine
9. Romania (Borders RF across the Black Sea)
10. Bulgaria (Borders RF across the Black Sea)
11. Turkey (Borders RF across the Black Sea)
12. Georgia
13. Azerbaijan
14. Iran (Borders RF across the Caspian Sea)
15. Turkmenistan (Borders RF across the Caspian Sea)
16. Uzbekistan
17. Kyrgyzstan
18. China
19. Mongola
20. Japan (Borders RD via Sea of Okhotsk)
21. United States
Ok, that's a long list...hmm perhaps this won't work.
Maybe just focus on Europe 1-10
Said countries revoke NATO membership, and join their own alliance. Same aims as NATO in terms of mutual defence, but entirely self-governed.
Essentially forming a buffer between NATO and the Russian Federation.
NATO no longer on RF's doorstep, but a sizable and united NATO-replacement is, to counter any RF aggression.
Then again, Putin has done more to advance future country membership of NATO than any other initative NATO have could have dreamed of themselves.
# slow clap.
"
Well it would be good for Putin if that were to happen as the border countries that currently enjoy NATO protection will be as vulnerable as Ukraine. Unless the US are involved they would not be a strong deterrent. If the US was involved then it's basically NATO again |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"None of this would even be an issue if Clinton and the US had let Russia join NATO in the first place.
But, of course, the US and the rest of the world that cling to their ballsack, had to keep Russia as the evil nuclear super power, helps keep the world population on their fearful toes a bit more than actually COOPERATING WITH THEM!"
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Why ?
NATO no longer on RF's doorstep, but a sizable and united NATO-replacement is, to counter any RF aggression.
Putin is moaning he doesn't want NATO on his doorstep. So this produces a buffer zone between him and NATO."
This sounds about as convincing as Putin’s claim his army is not targeting civilians!
Slow clap? More like a del boy visiting a wine bar cellar. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"None of this would even be an issue if Clinton and the US had let Russia join NATO in the first place.
But, of course, the US and the rest of the world that cling to their ballsack, had to keep Russia as the evil nuclear super power, helps keep the world population on their fearful toes a bit more than actually COOPERATING WITH THEM!"
I had a tear in my eye, a great read.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Not-NATO
I wonder if there is any milage in examining the possibility of a new mutal defence organisation.
A sort of "Not-NATO" if you like.
Membership is exclusively open to any country that has a border with the Russian Federation.
1. Sweden (Kalingrad across the Baltic Sea)
2. Finland
3. Estonia
4. Latvia
5. Lithuania
6. Poland (Kalingrad to the north)
7. Belarus
8. Ukraine
9. Romania (Borders RF across the Black Sea)
10. Bulgaria (Borders RF across the Black Sea)
11. Turkey (Borders RF across the Black Sea)
12. Georgia
13. Azerbaijan
14. Iran (Borders RF across the Caspian Sea)
15. Turkmenistan (Borders RF across the Caspian Sea)
16. Uzbekistan
17. Kyrgyzstan
18. China
19. Mongola
20. Japan (Borders RD via Sea of Okhotsk)
21. United States
Ok, that's a long list...hmm perhaps this won't work.
Maybe just focus on Europe 1-10
Said countries revoke NATO membership, and join their own alliance. Same aims as NATO in terms of mutual defence, but entirely self-governed.
Essentially forming a buffer between NATO and the Russian Federation.
NATO no longer on RF's doorstep, but a sizable and united NATO-replacement is, to counter any RF aggression.
Then again, Putin has done more to advance future country membership of NATO than any other initative NATO have could have dreamed of themselves.
# slow clap.
"
That sounds a bit like the European army, that failed to materialise. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
What a ludicrous post!
It doesn't matter whether it is called NATO, or NATO under another guise. What Russia clearly don't want is American imperialism encroaching on their borders, which clearly the eastward expansion of NATO was.
How would setting up another military alliance made up of western powers (including nuclear powers) which, as you suggest, entirely encircle Russia, make this any better.
The invasion and killing by Russia is horrific, barbaric. It is clearly imperialist in nature also, but let's not kid ourselves about what the eastward march of NATO was.
Ask yourself this, who did you see as the aggressor in the Cuban missile crisis? Purely America? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What a ludicrous post!
It doesn't matter whether it is called NATO, or NATO under another guise. What Russia clearly don't want is American imperialism encroaching on their borders, which clearly the eastward expansion of NATO was.
"
If you look at the countries I propose, they are very specific and consolidated (mostly) in the Baltics and Northern Europe.
Collectively if they pooled their resources together and operated under a Nato-like banner, they would form a stop gap.
The US, UK, France, Germany, Spain, are not part of this Not-Nato Alliance.
It's governed by themselves, for themselves, and their aim to to prevent NATO creeping further east, or Russia creeping further west. A counter-balance.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
