Originally Posted by
SonicFlyer
You need to learn some history... NATO was promised to be dismantled at the same time the Warsaw Pact was. And then NATO has expanded into other places where it shouldn't (the Balkins, Egypt, etc).
Oh I know the history, that's right up my professional alley. You're wrong.
No NATO authority "promised" dismantling. There were discussions with Gorby about limiting NATO expansion into Eastern Europe, but that was never codified in writing.
There is actually a post-warsaw pact treaty with RU but it covers hardware quantity and disposition in Europe, not alliances.
Only a compleate moron would ever think that NATO was an offensive entity of any sort. RU leadership is not that dense either, but of course NATO makes a great bogeyman to scare the russian man on the street.
Originally Posted by
SonicFlyer
That's part of it but he doesn't want NATO on his front door any more than what is already there, and again, given their expansion in the last couple of decades, his concern is indeed justified.
He doesn't care about NATO (that's not what he tells his people of course), as in he's not afraid NATO will invade. He does care very much about the de facto remnants of the old CCCP empire, for mainly economic but also prestige reasons. His concerns there are justified because eastern states which engage with the west economically tend to naturally drift away from RU in time.
His real problem with NATO is that it might interfere with aspirations to rebuild part of the empire he grew up in... if he invades his neighbors.
Originally Posted by
SonicFlyer
Uhh.... err..... have you seen their HQ? They have a Supreme Commander. They have the ability to make war.
There is no "NATO", the HQ can't declare war or authorize employment of forces. Exception is article 5, which is the sole reason NATO even exists: to ensure members can rely on each other for mutual DEFENSE. But Vlad would have to try very hard to trigger article 5, and if he does, he deserves every bit of what he has coming.
Originally Posted by
SonicFlyer
Have you ever read the 10th Amendment?
Yes. I've also read the BASE constitution which vests war making authority with congress... the direct representatives of the people. So either way you're covered: The constitution grants the authority in the first place so the 10th doesn't apply
Article V was RATIFIED by congress, so congress (the people's reps) have preemptively declared war in the event that certain predefined conditions exist. Necessary and obviously prudent in the modern era when war could happen on a moments notice.
But this all academic... NATO has not engaged RU, and clearly will not over UR. Even a humanitarian crisis (ex WMD) wouldn't be enough IMO, at least a couple NATO members would veto any interference.
What might happen is one or more NATO members, acting outside of NATO protocol, might get involved in some hypothetical scenarios. But that would happen anyway, regardless of whether NATO even existed. Multiple NATO members might get involved but unilaterally or with some other alliance or partnership arrangement. The standing NATO dedicated forces (such as the HQ) cannot be committed unilaterally. Some forces could be withdrawn from NATO by the member which provided them, and then employed any way they see fit.
The *real* NATO is simply the existence of and natural close relationships between the Western Europeans and the North Americans... that would still still exist regardless of any particular treaty or lack thereof.