NATO - Science topic

Hi Yunus Tor

I hope you are doing well.

What I will write will apply to both sides of the war—it matters who exploits it or uses it better.

Counter-Cognitive Warfare

Counter-cognitive warfare is a tool employed in hybrid warfare against targeted states. I believe NATO has thus far been successful in this cognitive conflict. However, as your question focuses on how NATO can utilise counter-cognitive warfare, the answer is straightforward: the more offensive actions are taken, the more defensive measures will be implemented by adversaries. Nevertheless, NATO could adopt the following strategies:

I hope this provides clarity on the matter.

Firstly, NEO Ming looks like a homeless old Asian bag

The whole geopolitical construct is wrapped in the domination theory. The proponents of the 'great game' between the West and Russia still wield influence in manipulating the narrative. Fear of losing the established position in the international world order is pushing NATO to limit Russian influence from radiating while Russia still carries the baggage of big power ego. Based on a rationalist interpretation of the situation, it is accepted that both NATO and Russia will avoid military confrontation. Functioning under restraint may not lead to aggression by either side, as the societal impact of any such adventure will be catastrophic. However, it opens room for contestation using Non-Contact Warfare. Escalation matrices will be carefully crafted and curated along non-lethal and lethal domains to gain ascendency over each other.

I do not think that the NATO would attack Russia or Russia genuinely feels threaten by direct attack.

I think it is more about its position in geopolitics and about its sphere of influence. By containing the Russia and moving closer to its borders, the Russian Federation feels that it is becoming a power of second category with less of a say in international politics. By loosing of deterrence power against the west, its sphere of influence may be diminished also in other parts, like central Asia. If Russia would be seen as weak, states in its sphere of influence would look rather to China or the West.

Your phrase, "USA<-->Europe<-->Africa : Je t'aime, moi non plus!" suggests a complicated relationship between these continents, with a mix of love and indifference.

It could be interpreted as:

- A commentary on the complex historical, cultural, and political ties between these regions

- A reflection of the push-and-pull dynamics of globalization, trade, and migration

- A nod to the contradictions of international relations, where cooperation and conflict coexist

Well played!

From certain points of view, it can be understood that way. From Russia's point of view, it can be understood that way.

But India also maintains good relations with the West. The relationship between the United States and India is one of the most strategic and important relations of the 21st century. Since 2014, strategic cooperation between the two nations has deepened, and India has been declared the United States' "principal defense partner."

India and France share long-standing cultural, commercial and economic ties. The strategic partnership between India and France, signed in 1998, has gained significant momentum over time and has now evolved into an even closer multilateral relationship, encompassing various areas of cooperation. ...

For China, the West is a great rival, but at the same time the EU and the US are important trading partners for Beijing.

A possible answer is that Russia perceives the War in Ukraine as a conflict between the 'West' and the 'East', because the USA and NATO (in adittion to the EU) have spent a large amount of money and ammunition in order to support Ukraine's fight against Russia. Thus, Russia is responding in the same way by arming the enemies of the' West' in terms 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'.

The decision to go to war involves complex geopolitical, economic, and diplomatic factors. It is important to engage in open dialogue, seek diplomatic solutions, and promote international cooperation to prevent conflicts from escalating into global wars.

If you are interested in understanding the perspectives of scholars, it's advisable to consult experts in international relations, political science, and history. Scholars often analyze geopolitical trends, historical precedents, and current events to provide insights into potential conflicts and avenues for resolution.

Remember that maintaining peace requires the collective efforts of nations, leaders, and citizens worldwide. Promoting understanding, tolerance, and cooperation on a global scale can contribute to a more stable and peaceful world.

In elementary school, a geographer told us that it takes a very long time for a rocket to fly to Moscow from Alaska, but it does not take long to fly from any European country

The U.S. controls the EU and is already in NATO. No point in their own Army

By joining NATO, Finland becomes more secure under the security umbrella of NATO. And NATO becomes even stronger by accepting Finland. Russia may concern about this development, but there is no possibility of a direct threat to its borders. Because no one dares to military attack a nuclear superpower such as Russia. The same is true for Russia too, even though it threatens some small NATO states rhetorically, but in reality, Moskow does not want to direct conflict with NATO because of the severe consequences that Russia has no capacity to bear it.

Depends on the age. Simply ... "Once upon a time ..."

There was a neighborhood of houses. In one house, the family went crazy and became bullies. They started moving their fences into the yards of their next door neighbors. Everybody in the neighborhood saw what they were doing, but did nothing and hoped they would just stop. One day the crazy people broke into the neighbors houses and took them for themselves, one after the other - some neighbors up the street tried to help, but were also taken over or barely kept the bullies out. The neighbors down the street teamed up with the bullies for little while, but then the bullies tried to take over their house.

Eventually help from outside the street arrived and pushed the bullies back into their own house, and took away their clubs. Everybody's house were wrecked or burned down, and as the neighbors up the street rebuilt their houses they saw that one big neighbor down the street never left the house they helped take back from the bullies, and were acting the same way as the first bullies. So the neighbors up the street realized they were weak by themselves, but together were stronger than the new bullies, and agreed if one them were bullied all of up the street neighbors would come to help all at once at the same time. Some in the neighborhood didn't join at first, but eventually did, and some never did, but there is lot less bullying in the neighborhood.

6 October MMXXI

Oh! You mean NATO was once strong?

Cordially...

ASJ

Since the formation of NATO, it has not entered in to major conflict except cold war, which can't be interpreted as world war3. Recently NATO participated in Afghan war as US allies. Unfortunately, NATO didn't operate as single entity and unified force under single command. Most NATO countries' militaries were assigned comparatively easier theaters as they refused to conduct operation because their countries political system didn't authorize that. Furthermore, militaries of mostly NATO countries participated in building and road constructions tasks or tasks related to self defense. Most militaries operated under their respective law and authorization of legislature. American military commanders termed Militaries of NATO / EU countries as drag rather than support. Keeping in view experience of NATO in Afghanistan, it does qualify to be a RELIABLE PARTNER rather just a symbolic alliance.

The impact of NATO on actors of IR was very high until the 1990s. However, the collapse of the USSR greatly affected the importance of NATO and its influence on actors. It is necessary to reform NATO to meet contemporary challenges in the international arena.

Dear Rune Pieters,

There is a large literature on this issue. I find Thomas Risse's book "A Community of Europeans" particularly helpful; it focuses on the construction of identities in Europe and also includes a chapter on the matter you are interested in.

All the best,

Florian

STANAG 6015: NATO METEOROLOGICAL AND OCEANOGRAPHIC CODES MANUAL. This STANAG has consolidated STANAGs 4061, 4082, 4140 and 6022.

Complicated, but as neighbours they should cooperate more instead of killing ambassadors and downing planes. After all the respective governments should represent their people on both sides.People don't want war, they prefer peace.

Indeed depleted uranium is used as an anti-tank and anti-armoured vehicule weapons and, military speaking, it was justified at that time in light of the military reality on the groung because Serbian army used armoured vehicules. Also, in light of Jus in Bello, the use of such munitions was not illegal and it respected the principle of the military necessity in the frame of a proportional response. However, the NATO intervention was illegal in light of the Jus ad Bellum but this realty doesn't affect the legal character of the use of depleted uranium because according to international law, Jus in Bello and Jus ad Bellum are independent from each other.

Thank you very much Mr. Motin

Dear Oleksandr Yeshanu ,

I am writing to inform you that I have one of them.

Please find attached document like as a PDF file.

I hope I have been of some help.

Best,

Andrija

Artur, I suppose you know what terrorism is - act of violence. And counter-terrorism is a fight against it, realized by institutions, countries, coalitions, etc.

But to the original question - I don´t think so, as members of NATO fight against terrorist only "on the eye", regardless it seems.

As a first, it brought exposure both to the cause and those who didn't sign on, and that's a good thing!

Wars can start on trivial issues and escalate quickly depending on the level of acrimony between the hostile nations. There are instances when a war started with the killing of one person. The best example of such a war is the First World War which started with the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand,heir to the Austro-Hungarian Empire who was killed for political gains but it quickly escalated into a war which engulfed the entire continent of Europe 

Dear Edijs,

concerning the dependence the EU on NATO and NATO on American foreign politics I would wait till the new president of United states  will take a lead. 

anyway, realism is for me personally the most explainable theory of IR after Ukraine crisis.

if you need some reference, take a look at Tang, S. The Social evolution of IR. Oxford Uni.Press. this is also very good understanding.

best wishes, Patricia.

Thanks for providing your valid opinions and analysis.

I personally believe that it’s not very likely that Russia and Turkey engage in a direct war.

Since Ukrainian crisis that led to more conflicts between Russia and the West, this incident has truly escalated the existing dispute.

However since both Putin and Erdogan tend to show their authoritarianism won’t leave any action or reaction unanswered.

Generally speaking, 13 November Paris attacks which left 130 people dead, have received more global sympathy in compare with Russian plane crash in Sinai which killed 224 people while ISIS has taken responsibility for both. Hence, even if Russia tends to shoot down a Turkish jet over Syrian border, it wouldn’t wish to be the aggressor, and as long as Turkey counts on NATO’s support cannot be recognized as the aggressor either.

Given these points, Russia may increase its support to Syrian Kurdish groups and PKK, and perhaps there is a new chapter of neo-Cold War and more proxy wars in the region.

Thank you so much Kyle.

Writing to them may be an answer, as for some reason there is no combined data on gender ratio passed 2001 in any of their documents. There is something on gender ratio at HQ and other international bodies but that is it. Thank you once again. Anna

I'm not entirely sure that the insecurity of the eastern and southern European members of the alliance is fully appreciated.  In conversations I've had with eastern Europeans (mostly from Poland and the Baltics) they are profoundly disappointed with the Alliance for the simple reason that the 'West' doesn't take their concerns about Russia seriously enough.  The annexation of Crimea has probably changed that, but there is an unbridgeable divid:  they want the permanent stationing of NATO (read US) troops on their territory and many in the alliance are firmly against doing so (notably Germany).

Hello,

It seems to me that already the first US military intervention against the Barbary pirates lacked Congressional approval but only had Jefferson's declaration of war. The latest military intervention in Libya seemed to lack full Congress support as described in below article.

Best,

Alex Tomic