Slovakia Might Vote To Leave Nato

Slovakia is garnering votes for a referendum to leave Nato, so I guess one can expect the American regime change freaks to garner a coup.

More and more Slovaks are seeing the American troops and heavy equipment there as a symbol of American imperialist and geo political domination... and they want them out. If the people manage it, which is doubtful when one sees the turmoil caused in other nations that go against the US, it might encourage other nations to follow suit.

(Hmmm, I wonder if Lithuania is next?)

An increasing number of Slovaks are opposed to the presence of NATO troops and bases in their country. A petition to withdraw Slovakia from NATO has all ready garnered 150,000 signatures. If a further 250,000 add their names to the petition, the issue of Slovakia withdrawing from NATO will go to an official referendum.

NATO’s recent surge of troops and heavy military equipment into central and eastern Europe is widely seen as a neo-imperial symbol of America’s continued domination of European geo-politics.

http://theduran.com/slovakia-may-vote-to-leave-nato/​

 

Of course being surrounded by countries and not bordering Russia, I guess they figure they'll be safe and why pay NATO for protection.

 

Who knew they were in NATO?

 

We needed that seat for Ukraine anyways.

 

If they're more oriented to Russia they do not belong in NATO anyway.

 

NATO itself, in my personal opinion, generally belongs in same place where we left USSR - on the doorstep of XXI century. Cold War is over, and keeping this chunk of it won't end in anything good by default.

 

No, Lithuania will not be the next. Litwin will be against the exit from NATO

 

Hmm I think this is interesting. Anything that could possibly in my wildest dreams begin to unravel NATO is interesting.

One tiny loose string can unravel an entire sweater after all.

So Slovakia has a population of approximately 5.5 million and 400k votes are needed..that would mean roughly 22% of their population would need to sign the petition. That's quite a chunk.

So I guess my questions are as of now are two.

1. How much revenue do NATO troops being there contribute to the peoples actual economy? Businesses, restaurants, entertainment etc?

2. Who started the petition? A major respected person or party or some fringe group? 20% is alot.

I'll go poke around the net. Thanks for posting

 

Why? You don't see how a mutual defense alliance might be useful in deterring violence, even between members?

How much more likely would another war between Greece and Turkey have been if not for the fear of NATO wrath?

 

He's not from Lithuania, nor lives in it. He's litvin, not lithuanian.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuanians
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litvin
Stop mixing the terms already.

 

Well, we already have one institute established to be preventing hostilities between countries, the United Nations. I would rather see it having more power and influence over global politics, instead of living in world with an unrestricted military block, that can by brute force overthrow any sort of political opposition at any moment.

Again, I point at fact that this is my personal opinion, and to a certain degree based on my personal feelings and intuition. Military alliances at all ages always were ending in war, and the bigger alliance was the bigger force was gathering against it. The most recent examples are Entente vs Triple Alliance in Great War, the Axis and Allies in Second World War, and later NATO and USSR in numerous proxy-wars during the Cold War. Right now we have only NATO, and no coalition balancing it out. In my personal opinion either it gets disbanded, or eventually it will become a threat against which a new coalition will gather. From there you can imagine how things will go.

Obviously, no government would look kindly at foreign military block dictating it what to do, and will be seeking ways to oppose that slow, but persistent agression.

While in United Nations, opposed to a military alliance of any sort, are presented representatives of almost all countries of the world, and they all work, first and foremost, towards keeping peace and preserving stability. So, UN has much more sympathies from me, than NATO does.

 

I'm not convinced that the UN, as a forum of discussion, has the same peacekeeping power as a large defensive alliance.

How much longer would hostilities in the Balkans have gone on without NATO interference? I think it would've been far bloodier.

The only government that has been the victim of NATO aggression besides Yugoslavia is the Taliban.

 

Deterring a war between Greece and Turkey is probably the only good Nato has done. ..but then again if Turkey was not in Nato, they wouldn't have fought with Greece anyway. Turkey was invited in only because they fought in the Korean war ...and it might have been the reason they did so since they needed protection from the Soviet Union.

 

Why would their participation in the Korean war be a prerequisite to them joining? It was certainly in the Wests interest to bring Turkey, a long-term geopolitical rival of Russia, into the alliance.

 

The only way to get protected from invasion is nukes, not NATO.

 

No, NATO is a perfectly valid means of deterring invasion. With it, American nukes act on your behalf.

 

Nato entered a civil war illegally in Yugoslavia in support of the KLA terrorists under the false pretense of genocide towards the Albanians, when it was proven later there was no genocide. In the meantime they bombed Belgrade for 78 days and killed thousands of innocent civilians.

A quarter of a million Serbs ran into refugee camps because they feared being killed by the Nato supported Albanian terrorists, who as Carla Bruni of the UN found out later on, were killing and selling Serb body parts.

When a no fly zone was given to Nato by the UN for Libya, they misused it, since they did not have permission to attack the country nor to kill its leader... which they did. In other words Nato is a criminal organization and the sooner it is dismantled the better.

 

Turkey was allied with Germany in WWI, and in WWII it remained neutral. Basically it was not considered part of Europe, and it is culturally different. I read that it had to do with their support in the Korean war.

 

What deterring invasion, up until now Nato has been the aggressor.

 

I just don't see why anyone would care. Germany was GERMANY in WWII, and the West was fully willing to work with it to counter the Soviets, going so far as re-arming it. People were honestly scared of a Soviet invasion, and concerns over how France felt about the Turks wouldn't have held anything up.

 

The point of deterrence is that the invasions never happen. But I can just say "Europe" and that should cover just about everything.

 

Excuse me, you second time in a row named NATO a "defensive" alliance. May I ask you to tell me, against whom it defends right now, or when it participated in any defensive war?

And on more serious note - the whole point of UN existence is exactly to prevent armed hostilities, a goal that military alliance cannot achieve by default. First of all, there always are those who left out of alliance, and therefore exposed - both to conflicts between other non-allied countries, and to agression from this alliance. Second, as I pointed in my first message - most likely eventually this alliance will be viewed as threat and will have a coalition formed against it. NATO right now is the only military formaion of it's kind and scale on the planet, and I sincerely believe and insist that world would be safer, if it gets dissoluted and eliviates a threat of large-scale war from the world.

Yes, UN does not posesses enough influence at the moment, but that can be changed only by people themselves. If we will give this influence to UN and will start treating it as higher authority, above local governments, I am sure we will have safer future.

 

NATO has never participated in a defensive war, because no non-member state has been stupid enough to attack a member state.

That's the point of a defensive alliance, to deter attacks.

It's worth noting that the invasion of Afghanistan was interpreted by NATO as a defensive action, but I don't count it myself.

Complete and total nonsense. If the defensive alliances preceding WWI had been more one-sided there never would have been a war. Post Cold War the purpose of NATO is to present a block of countries that cannot be attacked without incurring wrath.

This is the only, the ONLY reason that the FSB hasn't stoked civil unrest in the Baltic states and invaded those countries like it did with Ukraine.

The Russians don't want George or Ukraine to enter NATO because they know that it ties their hands, reduces their wiggle room.

Yeah, absolutely. All proof that the alliance works.

This is such an insane position to take. Dissolving NATO would certainly not alleviate the threat of large-scale war, it would increase it exponentially.

 

Let's not bring country you know incredibly, cosmically little about, into a discussion.

Why? Currently, all NATO does is creates extra political tension. With expanded rights of UN we would've had higher authority capable of restricting military activities of any country, while protecting rights of all states, not only ones included in a particular group. Group, that is not restricted in it's activities and expansion at the current moment.