Going it alone not an option, Nato chief warns Donald Trump

Everybody is crying about Russia absorbing Crimea..... except the people who live in Crimea. NATO, Obama and all the people who claim to love democracy can go screw themselves.
Those people voted and chose for themselves to become part of Russia....... and it is with them I stand.
Russia is not the boogy man and very well could be the only country out there with any sense right now.

They have requested over and over that NATO not put weapons along their borders only to be giving a great big FU ... seems to me that the USA got so pissed off when Russia wanted to put missiles on our borders that we threatened nuclear war...... but thats different isnt it. It was reasonable when we didnt want Russian missiles on our borders, but Russia is unreasonable for not wanting NATO missiles on its borders.

Russia might not be a friend of our government and the people who control our media.....but those people who keep telling me how bad Russia is...... are not my friends either

NATO outlived its usefulness as has the UN .
Time to give both the boot .

a reply to: VengefulGhost

I agree, like that more of our tax dollars can stay in the US.

originally posted by: Zimnydran
They have requested over and over that NATO not put weapons along their borders only to be giving a great big FU ... seems to me that the USA got so pissed off when Russia wanted to put missiles on our borders that we threatened nuclear war...... but thats different isnt it. It was reasonable when we didnt want Russian missiles on our borders, but Russia is unreasonable for not wanting NATO missiles on its borders.

No the big difference here is that Russia was going to put missiles that were packing NUKES in Cuba. What was to be installed on the border of Russia was anti-missile defenses, no nukes involved.

You have to look at NATO as an insurance policy, if you are covering a large population, you will pay more than a country that has a small population. It’s crazy to think a country with 30M people should pay the same as one with 400M. The problem is as with any insurance some deadbeats want the benefit but don’t want to pay their share for it and that is what needs fixing. It would only take a few nukes on key targets such as electrical grid, communications, gas and water supplies to send the US back to the Stone Age for years. That is when NATO would step in to help. Paying insurance premiums sucks but you are glad you have when you need it.

NATO is an ugly reality we all have to live with until enough people pull their head out of their butt and understand that killing is not the answer.

Many would dance in the strees if we cut ties with NATO and the UN.

I know I would. I know several dead leaders and dead people would still be alive if we had previously. I hope they fear it. Even fear us as a nation who isnt going to be their chained up guard dog of war nor world police thugs.. ever again.

This guy is a total nutcase. A horrendous warmonger who has favoured continuous NATO expansion against Russia for no reason other than Inperialism. He's also one of the strongest voices for intervention in Syria and a vocal supporter of the Fascist Kiev Junta currently ruling Ukraine.

The guy is likely panicking his organisation won't be able to harass and provoke Russia for much longer. Frankly people like him really have no business holding any position of authority.

a reply to: Ohanka

I've been in two phases of 1 NATO operation called ISAF. I got to see just how spoiled NATO officials can be.

My NATO service medal is the only one I don't really care for.

In ten years time that medal will be a relic of a failed military alliance. Destroyed by the EU and individual member states refusing to actually adhere to the terms of the NATO alliance.

There is no alliance if only one member state is doing all the heavy lifting. I think we should end NATO altogether honestly. It's become a place where European military elites can sunbathe while the plebs eat lead and shrapnel for dinner.

France left NATO/OTAN for a while.

originally posted by: Grayarea


No the big difference here is that Russia was going to put missiles that were packing NUKES in Cuba. What was to be installed on the border of Russia was anti-missile defenses, no nukes involved.

What difference does it make if the missile was a nuke? Who cares if a missile can kill 100,000 at a time or 10,000...or even 2. There is no reason to put missiles of any kind on someones front door..... who has done absolutely nothing to you....... except refuse to submit to your will

I think this guy pretty much gets what he needs to do. Ensure everyone stumps up the cash they should be paying in to the effort, or its done.

All very easy to comprehend. Less words and more signing of cheques.

originally posted by: Zimnydran

originally posted by: Grayarea


No the big difference here is that Russia was going to put missiles that were packing NUKES in Cuba. What was to be installed on the border of Russia was anti-missile defenses, no nukes involved.

What difference does it make if the missile was a nuke? Who cares if a missile can kill 100,000 at a time or 10,000...or even 2. There is no reason to put missiles of any kind on someones front door..... who has done absolutely nothing to you....... except refuse to submit to your will

You totally missed the point here. Nukes are for killing people, anti-missile defenses are for killing incoming missiles not people. The defenses only come into play if Russia shoots first, why worry about it unless they already had plans. The border does not just belong to Russia but they do have an aggressive history.

originally posted by: Profusion

Nato’s secretary-general has issued a dramatic warning to the US president-elect Donald Trump: “Going it alone is not an option, either for Europe or for the United States.”

Writing exclusively in the Observer, the leader of the western military alliance, Jens Stoltenberg, claims the west faces its greatest security challenge in a generation.

He pointedly recalls the blood spilled by Nato allies after they came to the aid of the US following the 9/11 attacks and warns that, rather than “deepening differences” between the 28 members, now is the time to “nurture what unites” under “strong American leadership”.
SOURCE

Trump isn't even president, and he's already being strong-armed by world leaders. I keep asking this, but can anyone explain why it doesn't matter who the POTUS is? Does anyone remember words like the above being directed at any other POTUS?

It's just a reminder of the reality of being a world leader today. If you stand up against the status quo at all, you will meet resistance at every step.

Does anyone think Trump could break up NATO? Apparently there's real concern over the issue.

I think this this diplomat speak for saying that if the US wants to remain the sole superpower which means they have to take out Russia, then now is not the time. This is because brexit and the Muslim invasion of Europe has resulted in a changed sentiment in Europe towards the US.

It means that when push comes to shove Britan, France and Germany may not offer their full and unconditional support as is required by the NATO alliance and they would likely have done 18 months ago. This would because they would know they are risking and giving up a lot for very little gain. that its all about helping the US fight their war.

More than anything else it means that the the US govt might not be able to be certain that even their own people would support such an unwise course of action. Failure to get Clinton elected is a good indicator of this.

They also know that if they took Russia on themselves, alone, and if severe physical damage was not done to the US infrastructure, untold damage might be done to the morale, desire and support of the American people for such action which could result in a long drawn out loss for the US. This would occur because Britan, France, Germany and China would then be biggest players on the world stage.

What would happen to the US should the American people realise their govt all run down burrows and left them on the surface to face the music they, the govt had started?

originally posted by: Kettu
Russia would love this to happen...

Caviar and vodka for everyone in the Kremlin this week, apparently.

I strongly doubt this. IMO Russia would be glad to be left alone, to mind their own business and to grow their economy and prosper.

It was Paul Wolfowitz who said this.

“Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile (??) power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.”

Is Wolfowitz, when referring to “hostile power” referring to any power independent of Washington’s control?

originally posted by: Grayarea

originally posted by: Zimnydran

originally posted by: Grayarea

What difference does it make if the missile was a nuke? Who cares if a missile can kill 100,000 at a time or 10,000...or even 2. There is no reason to put missiles of any kind on someones front door..... who has done absolutely nothing to you....... except refuse to submit to your will

You totally missed the point here. Nukes are for killing people, anti-missile defenses are for killing incoming missiles not people. The defenses only come into play if Russia shoots first, why worry about it unless they already had plans. The border does not just belong to Russia but they do have an aggressive history.

You know and I know...... that today is just " anti missile" missiles...... but it never stays that way does it? Because that is soon followed up with..... we just need missiles and guns there to protect our anti missile, missiles.... and then we just need 10,000 soldiers to operate and maintain all those missiles.
Russia is not the boogyman