Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do you have evidence that Eastern European countries were pressured or tricked into joining NATO against their will?
Not pressured or tricked. There are monetary incentives to join.
Quote:
Under the security umbrella provided by NATO, the people of Europe, Canada, and the United States enjoyed the benefits of democratic choice, the rule of law and substantial economic growth. The Alliance’s deterrence is based on an appropriate mix of nuclear and conventional capabilities, which remain a core element of NATO’s strategy. This is matched by Allies’ commitment to arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation.
Economic statistics from NATO's first three Central European members appear to confirm what many have argued: NATO membership confers not only security benefits but economic ones as well. Statistics show that the level of new foreign investment going into Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic is rising or has remained stable, even as those countries finish off their large-scale privatization programs. Analysts say investors are responding to the reduced risk of investing in those countries and that NATO gets at least part of the credit. This comes as welcome news to NATO supporters in aspiring countries who must counter arguments that the costs of NATO membership outweigh the gains.
. . . . drop down to . . .
Vike Gronenberg is an economic analyst specializing in Central Europe at the investment bank Salomon Smith Barney in London.
She said that since 1999, the amount of foreign investment going to the Czech Republic and Hungary each year is roughly double what it was before NATO expansion. In Poland, direct foreign investment remains one of the few bright spots in an otherwise lackluster economy. Gronenberg said investors are responding to the reduced risk.
"Green-field and -- let's call it nonprivatization -- [foreign investment] has been increasing [in the three countries]. And this is very much for the reasons that you can argue: because of NATO; because of stability, democratically, in terms of policies. And that's all conducive to economic growth and investment," Gronenberg said.
She said this is especially noticeable in Hungary, where foreign investment had been expected to fall after the country completed most of its large-scale privatizations in 1997 and 1998.
Contrary to expectations, however, investment in Hungary has grown as investors increasingly choose to locate new factories and industries there.
Since 1996, fourteen Eastern European countries have become NATO members. Putin has stated that he disapproved of NATO expansion and it's one of the reason that he attacked Ukraine.
Do you think it was wrong for so many countries to apply for and join NATO?
Only three former Soviet states have joined, and they are Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, and they joined due to the threat from the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad and the Suwalki corridor (also known as the Suwalki Gap).
The Suwalki is the border areas between Belarus, Poland and Lithuania which borders Kaliningrad, and which has the potential to cut of the Baltic states of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia.
The Russians have threatened to base nuclear weapons including hypersonic missiles in Kaliningrad.
Kaliningrad is therefore one of the most strategically important areas in Europe.
As for Poland, Romania, Hungary, Czech Republic etc they do not border mainland Russia and there is no treaty to stop them joining NATO.
In terms of Ukraine and Georgia, the US Bush administration supported their bid to become NATO members in 2008, however France, Germany, the UK and many other European countries voiced their concerns in relation to Russia and the possibility of being drawn in to a conflict under Article 5.
As for future NATO expansion, I don't see anything wrong with Sweden and Finland joining NATO, however beyond these countries NATO should have no interest in any further European expansion or expanding in to any other former soviet states, many of which are in Asia and include the likes of Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Chechnya, Belarus and Kazakhstan.
Some politicians including Boris Johnson have recently stated that they believe NATO should expand beyond Europe NATO to the Indo-Pacific, and admit allies such as South Korea, Japan, Australia/NZ etc, however this is also controversial and may cause an even more strained relationship with China and may be seen as provocation by North Korea.
Last edited by Brave New World; 03-20-2022 at 11:12 AM..
Johnson associated Brexit with the current situation in Ukraine. I don't see the reference. More like Crimea trying to split from Ukraine is similar. Here we have invasion -> change of status quo to uncertainty, I guess Boris links freedom to anything whenever he sees it.
Times change. And NATO has changed with the times.
NATO has changed indeed. The question is - to serve whom and whose interests? Are we threatened by an ever-changing coterie of bogeymen or are we just permanently looking for bogeymen to justify nearly 800 billion dollars in annual expenditures?
NATO has changed indeed. The question is - to serve whom and whose interests? Are we threatened by an ever-changing coterie of bogeymen or are we just permanently looking for bogeymen to justify nearly 800 billion dollars in annual expenditures?
Add to that the $800 million america gave Ukraine right after Zelenski called the old cuckoo "desired leader of the free world". In fact Zelenski lost points in the hero-department after this speech, it didn't sound like a hero who wants independence, it sounded more like 'no russia, yes america' kind of speech. I hope I'm wrong...
NATO has changed indeed. The question is - to serve whom and whose interests? Are we threatened by an ever-changing coterie of bogeymen or are we just permanently looking for bogeymen to justify nearly 800 billion dollars in annual expenditures?
Looking for a bogeyman....
Well, let's see...about 5' 6" balding ..rat like face ...about 70...
Containing that Bogeyman is well worth spending the money
Johnson associated Brexit with the current situation in Ukraine. I don't see the reference. More like Crimea trying to split from Ukraine is similar. Here we have invasion -> change of status quo to uncertainty, I guess Boris links freedom to anything whenever he sees it.
I think Boris Johnson hits the nail on the head in the recent speech in the video below.
Putin is scared of free western democracy and trade emerging on the borders of Russia.
Putin is a man who sees the fall of the Berlin Wall as a major catastrophe, along with the break up of the Soviet Union.
Putin is a man who helped ensure state control over the population as an Officer in the KGB and this mind set and ideology has always dominated Putin's thinking.
About Boris Johnson. The Russian invasion of Ukraine saved his government from a crisis. It certainly got his parties during covid lockdowns off the front page of the newspapers.
Russia has elections. President Putin isn't scare of democracy. He's fed up with the USA mounting missiles around his country all pointed at Moscow. Same way the USA is trying to stop China from having a military seaport on the Atlantic Ocean. President Kennedy had to remove missiles from Turkey before Russia removed its missiles from Cuba.
How could it be wrong for any entity to join a well-intentioned group if they qualify?
Quote:
Originally Posted by YorktownGal
Is it well-intentioned group?
A well-intentioned group with all their missiles pointed at one country?
Yes, a well-intentioned group created to band together for their mutual freedom and stability. That's quite common. Are you not aware that countries, including the U.S., constantly band together for mutual benefit?
They are poised to retaliate if threatened, which is also common. They're not the aggressors here. It's veyr rarely so clear-cut as it is today, with Russia so obviously in the wrong.
Yes, a well-intentioned group created to band together for their mutual freedom and stability. That's quite common. Are you not aware that countries, including the U.S., constantly band together for mutual benefit?
They are poised to retaliate if threatened, which is also common. They're not the aggressors here. It's veyr rarely so clear-cut as it is today, with Russia so obviously in the wrong.
The USA/NATO are the bullies.
Think about the Ukraine 2014 presidential election. There is an election. A small portion of the population is unhappy with the results. They stage a protest outside government offices. The CIA comes in. Victoria Nuland, the Assistant Secretary of State, brings cup of coffee and donuts to the protestors. She tells them the USA supports their revolution. The legally elected president flees Ukraine fearing for his life.
Think about USA 2020 presidential election. There is an election. A small portion of the population is unhappy with the results. They stage a protest outside government offices like January 6th.
How would you feel if a foreign government's CIA came in to the picture? How would you feel if their Assistant Secretary of State, brings cup of coffee and donuts to the protestors? A foreign official tells them Country X supports their revolution.
Who is the bully?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
