Dying For Montenegro

[_Water Dog]

If you look at the relationship as bilateral zero-sum game, we are on the short end of the stick. But an organization like NATO helps prevent local conflicts from flaring into major conflicts. Without NATO, what would have happened to the residents of Kosovo? When the strong get together to protect the weak, that makes aggressor nations think twice.

There is a price for coming to the defense of our allies. Ultimately, there is a much greater price to pay if we do noting to invest in a world where the strong do not prey upon the weak.

So the theory goes. It's a form of MAD. Nobody dare mess with little Montenegro, because to do so would set the whole world on fire. Sometimes, the threat of the whole world going to war over a small territorial dispute in a tiny Balkan state serves to deter and prevent war. On the other hand, sometimes a complex web of treaties and defensive alliances actually causes the entire world to go to war over a small territorial dispute in a tiny Balkan state. See WW1. So it's not quite so true to say sprawling networks of alliances always prevent catastrophically large conflicts. It's not true of the Balkans region, or of countries sometimes known as Yugoslavia.

[_honorentheos]

That's largely why article 5 isn't written to require the NATO allies to go to war, but to take measures they deem necessary.

Article 5

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

[_Water Dog]

That's a nice sentiment, but that's just not reality in any meaningful sense when it come to human nature. No matter how many norms one creates they begin to collapse once a standard is created. The strong and/or clever will always find a workaround to ensure they get theirs. Utopia and, really, fairness just isn't going to happen.

Bingo.

Dog, you know that the treaties with Ukraine aren't an equivalent to the NATO charter. I know you know that. So you also know this is just attempting to muddy water that doesn't need muddying....So long as the counter to Russian aggression is full scale war with the west, he lacks that escalation advantage.

Nope, just the opposite, and the Ukraine is a perfect comparison. For the simple reason that we weren't and aren't actually willing to go to full scale war. We aren't willing, and for damn certain the rest of the west isn't willing. Then, now, or in the foreseeable future. This is what I'm getting at.

The basic tension in foreign policy is between moralism and realism. You all, just like the establishments on both the left and right, are preaching moralism without any regard to reality. You view things through an almost purely moral lens, as if it's dirty and grubby to even consider pesky little questions like, "what realistically can be done to vindicate this moral right?" And I would argue that this devotion to a risibly moralistic concept of foreign policy results in immoral and perverse outcomes. It's immoral and dishonest to enter into a treaty, or contract, pretending that we're willing to abide by the terms when in truth we aren't at all.

Just like the Ukraine. Or Vietnam. Or Iraq. Or Afghanistan. Etc. It's a rather long list. We have a habit of over-promising in the moment, while on a kind of spiritual, moralistic high, but then after reality sets in and we're looking down the barrel of choosing between our children and Montenegro, well, that choice was made a long time ago but we weren't honest enough to admit it.

NATO article 5 is like a provision in a contract that's against the interest of the party signing. In this case that party being the American people. We then cajole them into signing the contract by telling them that the provision will never be enforced, and merely exists to satisfy shareholders and make them feel comfortable. The clause thereby becomes unenforceable, because those who refuse to abide are wholly and morally justified in doing so.

[_MeDotOrg]

If you look at the relationship as bilateral zero-sum game, we are on the short end of the stick. But an organization like NATO helps prevent local conflicts from flaring into major conflicts. Without NATO, what would have happened to the residents of Kosovo? When the strong get together to protect the weak, that makes aggressor nations think twice.

There is a price for coming to the defense of our allies. Ultimately, there is a much greater price to pay if we do noting to invest in a world where the strong do not prey upon the weak.

So the theory goes. It's a form of MAD. Nobody dare mess with little Montenegro, because to do so would set the whole world on fire. Sometimes, the threat of the whole world going to war over a small territorial dispute in a tiny Balkan state serves to deter and prevent war. On the other hand, sometimes a complex web of treaties and defensive alliances actually causes the entire world to go to war over a small territorial dispute in a tiny Balkan state. See WW1. So it's not quite so true to say sprawling networks of alliances always prevent catastrophically large conflicts. It's not true of the Balkans region, or of countries sometimes known as Yugoslavia.

If you are a looking for an example of the impact of alliances on the Balkans, I can think of a more recent example than 1914. 1994. Do you think Russia was going to come to the defense of its little Slavic Serbian brothers?

The power dynamics of the Triple Entente and the Triple Alliance were a lot more precarious than alliances today. Before the Great War, warfare was seen by most people as a gallant dash of arms. The Rouge Pantalones of the French Army were a source of great national pride. After a few years of getting mowed down by German machine guns because they were so visible, the French began to believe less in color and elan, and started preferring the slit trench. The war literally sucked the color out of Army uniforms. It was then that discrete green and gray became the order of the day. World War I sucked a generation of men and treasure out of Europe. Europeans never thought about warfare the same way again.

In the absence of a strong alliance, nature abhors a vacuum. In the 1930's that allowed Nazi Germany to flourish.

The Warsaw Pact and NATO existed for nearly half a century. There was no World War III during that time.

[_Chap]

As has already been sufficiently indicated, the likelihood of a Russian attack on Montenegro (which has no common frontier with Russia, or with any country bordering on Russia, and is over 2000 km from Moscow) and on Montenegro alone, is pretty well zero. We are only having this discussion because of Trump's little fantasy that Montenegro 'might get aggressive' and start World War III. Stupid or what? Just stupid, frankly. Any military conflict that gets as far as involving Russia with Montenegro will already be incalculably momentous.

More generally, if the United States high command genuinely feels that the United States is safer without allies and alliances, then no doubt they will invoke the clause allowing them to withdraw from the North Atlantic Treaty. Of course in making such decisions, they will no doubt consider the effect on US interests in other parts of the world, such as the South China Sea, and the Gulf, of a message that suggests that the US is not interested in projecting power to keep the peace and protect the rule-governed world order on which its economic interests vitally depend. That is a message that will be carefully read by large countries interested in expanding their military reach, and by smaller countries wondering with whom they should cast in their lot.

Fortunately, it is unlikely that Water Dog's opinions will have much influence on such decisions.

[_Themis]

The US is not really on the short end of the stick. IT's not costing the US and other countries much if anything to agree to defend each other.

If that's not the silliest thing anybody has said so far...

Only to the really really stupid. It hasn't cost the US to have set up NATO and has been a benefit for over half a century of stability and resultant economic benefits of peace.

[_Themis]

It's immoral and dishonest to enter into a treaty, or contract, pretending that we're willing to abide by the terms when in truth we aren't at all.

The US and other countries in NATO have demonstrated they are serious about defending each other. It's only lately a Moron became US president and is now suggesting the US may not, and then another moron is now taking up the same opinion. Shocker. Putin is laughing at how easy it is to manipulate you with his moron puppet Trump.

[_Water Dog]

The US and other countries in NATO have demonstrated they are serious about defending each other.

No they haven't. That's well demonstrated by the Ukraine. The fact that we won't let them into NATO, the fact that none of the NATO members will stand up for the Ukraine, despite all the notable players having their own various treaties and agreements in place obliging them to do so.

Another thing worth pointing out is that if you look at NATO the only competent military is the USA. And, the UK... although they are in a league far below our own. Seriously, go down the whole list. Not a single one would be any help in a conflict. Sure, the list is long, but it's like a room full of kids vs Ivan Drago. The idea of brining the kids together is an even bigger cluster than watching them get their asses beat one by one.

Serious about defending each other? It's laughable, with numerous examples to demonstrate the fact. See Afghanistan. They weren't helpful at all. They were the opposite and drug us down. Not just logistically, but in terms of moral and political will to see the mission through. And then while this is going on these same people are importing muslim refugees as fast as they can, ghettos forming all over Europe, undermining all the stuff we've been working on and dying for. You've got Mohammed cracking the top 10 name list in the UK. Crime through the roof in London. Paris. Denmark. On and on. But, yah, sure, they're totally going to defend us. They can't protect their own daughters from getting raped in their own cities.

[_honorentheos]

Another thing worth pointing out is that if you look at NATO the only competent military is the USA. And, the UK... although they are in a league far below our own. Seriously, go down the whole list. Not a single one would be any help in a conflict.

Ok, Dog. That's silly.

[_Morley]

You've got Mohammed cracking the top 10 name list in the UK.

Even if true, how is this relevant?

Crime through the roof in London. Paris. Denmark. On and on. But, yah, sure, they're totally going to defend us. They can't protect their own daughters from getting raped in their own cities.

I only took the time to look up the stats for Denmark. Glancing at them, I have to wonder where you're getting your information.

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Denmark/United-States/Crime