Is NATO kill?

>countries violate the Geneva convention
>countries violate the Genocide Convention
>said countries are in NATO's backyard
>said country storms UN compounds to kill the civilians inside
>said country shoots at NATO jets
>said country expects not to get rekt

It disgusts me how soft Americans have become that this sort of thing is even a topic of debate.

It's still launching operations and expanding. So no.

t. Željko Popović

>WHY DID THEY BTFO THE INNOCENT SERBS INSTEAD OF LETTING THEM REMOVE KEBAB IN PEACE

10,484 strikes was not enough.

The fact that people believe the terrorist organization KLA was preventing genocide is laughable. All the Serb army did was put down lawless protesters.

>All the Serb army did was put down lawless protesters

Yes, when the Serbian Army was carrying out mass killings, rape and expulsions of Kosovo Albanian civilians from their homes they were just putting down lawless protesters, I get it, Slobodan.

>or when the war in Yugoslavia took place, Western countries reacted united to those threats.
"Western countries" did jack shit. The US sat out for as long as it could ("No dog in this fight") and then took the helm after the inaction of western partners became intolerable to the US leadership.

>rape
Didn't know Serbs were into bestiality.

NATO is still necessary. Only that Drumpf thinks otherwise because he works for Russia.

>NATO is still necessary.

It's true.

Europe is now more defenseless against Russian aggression than at any point in the 20th century.

European nationalist movements which are becoming mainstream would disagree. Russia also has not been a threat for decades. This is not about "Russian aggression" but about US interests being perceived as better than European interests and the US neocon warhawks are totally fine with that because they are still in world police mode which does more harm than good. An example of European interests would be France wants to be more neutralist like Switzerland or Austria and to break apart from NATO or US interests with Marine Le Pen having a France first policy of her own concerning geopolitics. Lastly most of the populace of Europe favors Russian Friendship over American which they perceive as more refugees for them and Less based Russian Christians to tell tales about but this sentiment is popular not only among the younger Europeans born after the cold war but for right wing europeans aswell.

Realist standpoint: NATO is falling apart because it was created in a bipolar world. It was an alliance against a now defunct alliance and it's major entity and since the world is now monopolar, the alliance is useless for most involved.

Liberal Standpoint: NATO is breaking up as the alliance is less necessary due to more institutions creating a more peaceful world thus negating the need for such a large military alliance.

Constructivist Standpoint: NATO is falling apart as ideologies within the alliance shift thus splitting members apart from one another.

Marxists: The Capitalist west is falling apart and thus so is their alliance.

Hit pretty much every big IR theory standpoint on the matter so pick your poison. With that said, 25 year rule, take it to /pol/.

>Russia also has not been a threat for decades.
Oh really?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Yamantau
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT-2PM2_Topol-M
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-36_(missile)

We're not soft, just stupid. Ask anyone born after 1995 and I guarantee you 4 out of 5 (and thats being fucking generous) of us wouldn't even know we bombed them

Ignorant*

The utter neglect that European NATO members have shown for their armed forces is their own fault.

NATO is far more useful as a defensive deterrent than anything else. The fact that NATO is unwilling to fuck around in the middle east the way it used to be doesn't mean NATO isn't capable of defending other treaty members should they be attacked.

Very interesting.

>>WHY DID THEY BTFO THE INNOCENT SERBS INSTEAD OF LETTING THEM REMOVE KEBAB IN PEACE
Indeed, why?

No more Warsaw pact to counter it.

Many individual factors, but in a nutshell it was the over militarization by the US its use of NATO as an empire proxy. It's nothing more than US power projection now, and everyone just kinda went with that.

Nukes haven't been used since WWII. Nukes are obsolete. Lets get rid of our nuclear arsenal.

That's a piss poor analogy, nobody is saying nukes are obsolete. NATOs existence on the other hand, has been questioned.

>a defensive alliance that protects two of the largest economies in the world from aggression is not necessary
>America should abandon nato, join with russia and liberate constantinople

>two
3 of the top 5 and 6 of the top 10 economies are in NATO.

I was talking about EU in general, which has a bigger economy than the United States.

Yea, by Russia and idiots.

>which has a bigger economy than the United States
No, it doesn't. It's still smaller than the United States and has never surpassed it.

>and idiots
Most international relations theorists look at NATO and question it. While it seems common sense for such a defense pact to exist the way it does, it should have split after 1991 for all intents and purposes.

shit, I was looking at PPP values. My bad. there's a 1 trillion dollar difference between the two.

>Lastly most of the populace of Europe favors Russian Friendship over American
buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuulshit

hey, he thinks that russian shills on the internet are people in the EU.

Wew, add Crimea to that list as much as RT shills love to announce the "vote" they had

>it should have split after 1991 for all intents and purposes.

And why is that? Should not liberal democracies support one another?

Depends on your IR theory, mostly. The reality is, despite the common conception, is that the world is currently monopolar. There is not a power that can actually challenge the United States and thus such a large alliance should be defunct due to a lack of actual threat. Add on the reality that due to liberal institutions there is far less room for armed conflict between states without coming out the loser even if you win and that the vast majority of states on Earth share ideological values, despite the common media rhetoric conflict is decreasing in likelihood. This is the common perception of the big three international relations theories.

Also the tl;dr

The only real reason that NATO still exists is because common sense dictates it should despite there being no credible reason for its continued existence.

>due to a lack of actual threat

Nobody directly threatens the United States. For that matter, nobody directly threatens Western Europe. But that doesn't mean there is no threat to any liberal democracy anywhere. If NATO'S only practical result is guaranteeing the self-determination of the Baltic states or stopping ethnic wars in the Balkans, it's still worth it.

NATO isn't for protecting the threats of liberal democracies anywhere. It's for protecting Europe, Canada and the United States, none of which are threatened and thus the alliance is unnecessary. In fact, the continued existence of NATO is a greater threat to liberal democracy because it creates a security dilemma for states outside of it (which is why you see Russia behave the way it does when NATO does shit like put missile bases in Poland or Turkey).

NATO bombed us hard and it's nice that NATO is dying.
t. Serb

>There is not a power that can actually challenge the United States
[THIS IS WHAT AMERICANS ACTUALLY BELIEVE]

Holy shit you are delusional.
China has the world's largest industrial capacity and almost doubles your iron and steel production. We are in a situation where people underestimate them just because they've never flexed their muscles, just like they underestimated the US before WW1.

But China is now the world's greatest economic power just like the US was in the 1910s and military power only follows the economic.

If a war should erupt between China and the US today, the Americans better pray to take down China fast otherwise the Chinese superior industrial capacity would lead to their defeat.

The US economy is a paper tiger since most of the GDP goes to services like finance or insurance which are worthless in a war.

...

>THIS IS WHAT AMERICANS ACTUALLY BELIEVE
This is what every international relations scholar believes and they know far more than you. Real life is not fucking Hearts of Iron.

>But China is now the world's greatest economic power just like the US was in the 1910s and military power only follows the economic
>2/3 American GDP
>worlds greatest economic power
Uh, no.

You're delusional. Go back to /pol/

>wars, especially modern wars are won with steel.

see, you could have made your point if you mentioned that the Chinese independent electronics programs are coming into their own.

>This is what every international relations scholar believes and they know far more than you.
Source?

>2/3 American GDP
Actually China's GDP is higher when you measure GDP PPP which takes into account actual production of goods rather than their nominal price, fucktard.

Iron, steel and electronics > Insurance and Starbucks

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarity_(international_relations)#American_primacy

>into account actual production of goods rathe than their nominal price, fucktard
That's not what PPP means. PPP adjusts the nominal price based on purchasing power.

Congratulations, you're stupid in three groups of study: military science, economics, and international relations.

Pretty sure NATO is responsible for the stalemate in the War of Donbass while economic sanctions cripple supply lines to Russian insurgents.

>That's not what PPP means. PPP adjusts the nominal price based on purchasing power.
It's exactly what PPP means idiot. Purchasing Power Parity, that is, assuming the price of goods will tend to be worth the same in all countries on a long enough timeline, their price is equalized at a midpoint.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchasing_power_parity

I have a degree in Economics, you don't get to push me around with wikipedia links since I actually know what I'm saying. PPP is used for all military comparisons since it measures actual production of goods whereas nominal GDP is used for investment decisions since it measures the current market value of the countries' production.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarity_(international_relations)#American_primacy
First source on your article is literally titled "China's challenge".

>PPP
going by this logic India is also a superpower and it ain't even 2020.
Modi did it again!

>implying any large-scale war is possible with today technology and anyone in the world would be willing to risk it
>implying international organizations, lobbyists and banks wouldn't oppose that and rather prefer proxy wars
>implying that in case of an actual large scale conflict between modern superpowers anyone would actually fight the way WW2 was fought
Wake up.

the only reason america rose to it's position was because europe and the older powers were wrecked by two consecutive world wars while the US had the chance of profiting from it.

Wars of that intensity aren't going to happen in the future especially with international organizations like the UN or NATO that try to prevent conflicts from sparking into major wars.

>I have a degree in Economics, you don't get to push me around with wikipedia links
>goes on to post 2 (two) wikipedia links
While I'm sure your points are valid that is just too funny

A WW3 is unlikely but should it happen, it would go nuclear pretty fast and after that phase is over coventional war would take over.

That's what the Soviet declassified war plans in the late 1980s show.

Remember people also thought a world war was impossible when dynamite was discovered because of its destructive power.

India is a regional power and could bully several South East Asian countries in a war, for example.

It seems to be the greatest irony in history - Hitler, with his hatred towards the jews and through holocaust, ensured that Europe will not fight for it's colonies and will get BTFO.
Imagine Europe now if the eternal Anglo wouldn't need to get out because the population wanted to do so.

Only India doesn't have the force projection to do that. And neither does china for that matter. They are both regional powers at best (for India) or in general (for china).

Well it's not bestiality if they are both animals.

>after everyone throws their nuclear weapons at each other the economy will stay untouched
If things go that way, it's over. No production of anything will matter, and Soviet plans prove dogshit.

>go nuclear
>both the US and china have no first strike policies.

Nuclear weapons are not magic.

They can cause massive destruction but won't wipe a country from the Earth despite what the movies show. The higher the GDP the more nukes you will need to get it down to zero.

MAD is a Western concept, the Russians and Chinese have always believed in fighting a winnable nuclear war.

That's what the Soviets said too, their declassified war plans show otherwise.

alternatewars.com/WW3/the_war_that_never_was.htm

>The higher the GDP the more nukes you will need to get it down to zero
Ok, no. Industry, especially in China, is extremely concentrated - but that aside, once the bombs drop there is literally no way to predict the outcome - you would be dealing with nuclear winter, utter devastation of population and infrastructure and so on.
In such scenario GDP matters so little it's ridiculous - you could have entire countries almost untouched or completely destroyed, and the most important factor would be how well you can defend your country during those few hours - not the amount of factories or anything else, and in that, I would put my money on the Americans (and Swiss).

yes, and it literally says that the authorization for said nuclear weapons would be in the hands of the general secretary of the politburo. A nuclear war wouldn't just start. It would have to be an active decision by soviet political and military leadership.

How does that contradict what I said?

nuclear winter is a meme, completely debunked.

It's not irrelevant, it's the evil empire of the modern age.

You're talking about things 5 years apart and in different places.
Also, it was mostly police operations. NATO involvement escalated the conflict.
It's also hypocritical.
One time to act in favor of national sovereignty, and another in favor of self determination.