- Michael M.: Too much going on. Life in flux, etc..
- Sunshine: Wow, I was soooo happy to see a new post in my rss reader. I was hopping this is already the comeback! :(...
- gandalf: Did you only get caffeine through Dr.p or did you drink coffee as well? I’m interested, since...
- neeka: nine kilos… wow… :) happy holidays to you, michael, and to all your loved ones! veronica
- m: It was a bargain. No strings attached.
Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Maribor, Slovenia.
Portoroz, Slovenia.
• AlienMelon
• Burger.si
• Heck
• Izklop
• si.blogs
• Sloblogi
• Blogorola
• Natalija Verboten
These Slovenes don’t even know that nuclear armageddon may soon be upon them!
Author Richard Lourie recently wrote a stupid editorial that appeared in various Russian newspapers. In it, he warns against the expansion of NATO and includes this particularly stupid sentence:
“The United States and the rest of the West are now in the rather odd position of risking armageddon to defend Slovenia.”
Here’s why I think this stupid sentence is so stupid:
1) The U.S. and the West have always been in the “rather odd position” of defending smaller states from bigger ones. From the very minute that NATO went live in 1949, the U.S. was in the “rather odd position” of having to defend countries like Denmark, Iceland and Portugal from atomic death. In other words, the current arrangement is not new, not noteworthy, and definitely not “odd” because it’s always been like this. The only difference between today and 1949 is that today there isn’t even a real threat anymore. (Unless you subscribe to the theory that the Soviet Union faked its death and will soon return.) Which brings me to point number two:
2) DEFEND SLOVENIA FROM WHAT EXACTLY? Try to think up a scenario where Slovenia somehow provokes a nuclear holocaust. Not just any scenario. Try to think of one that doesn’t make you sound like a total nutter. You can’t. You know why? Because only a total nutter thinks that Slovenia is some kind of dangerous security liability for the west. If anything, the reverse is true: the smaller NATO countries are being pulled along for various missions abroad by the larger ones, namely America. Slovenia has sent troops to Afghanistan, Iraq, Kosovo and many other places, but nowhere unilaterally. Who exactly is in an odd position in this relationship? Because:
3) Let’s suspend disbelief for a moment and assume that somehow Slovenia goes to war. Raise your hand if you honestly think that NATO would feel compelled to rush to Slovenia’s defense. If hostilities erupted at the border, do you think the U.S. would scramble fighters from Aviano? If your hand is up right now, please close it into a fist and then direct it repeatedly into your own face, because you chose…… poorly. Regardless of what the NATO charter says, you can’t tell me that NATO will go to war unless it actually wants to.
And that’s why I think it’s a stupid sentence.
Comments
Comments for this post are closed.
Hilarious photo!
if si is in nato, isn’t the organization “obligated” to respond to military attack? they may try to weasel out of it, but if the country was at war does it not seem pretty clear that nato member countries get defended, as you yourself said in point #1.
*punches self in face*
I think it would apply only to the most clear-cut case of naked aggression — thousands of tanks suddenly entering Ljubljana, for example. Basically, something that’s never going to happen. If a war breaks out, it’ll be unclear to the outside what’s going on. It’ll be some stupid he-said/she-said, low-intensity back-and-forth. I imagine something like with what’s going on now with NATO-member Turkey and Kurdish guerrillas in Iraq. Even if Turkey could prove that it was under attack by Kurds in Iraq, I can’t imagine NATO doing anything besides writing a declaration of disapproval or two.
Most excellent demolition of a stupid sentence.
The author was probably thinking Slovakia anyway.
Michael, you’re so sexy when you’re outraged by idiotic editorials.
And I agree with JS.
1. mixed up with Slovakia? Yes
2. Why be NATO member anyway? Michael, you have only listed the 3 reason why not to be a NATO member. So all the Slovene politicians who were pro NATO membership were as stupid as Richard Lourie. Sorry, but nothing new!
Hm… Actually, there’s more truth in this article that is seems at a first glance. At least in my opinion. Namely: Technically, Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty does reqiure NATO to retaliate in a case when one or more members are attacked.
Having said that… Michael M. is probably right in saying that the US would think twice about commiting military resources to defend Slovenia. That is - if USA were reluctant to go to war.
The US, however, is very trigger happy at the moment and although losing the Iraq conflict, one should never forget that USA will always use military force to defend what it will deem its strategic intetest.
Even more, history is replete with big countries using smaller countries as an excuse to fight. Think Austro-Hungarian Empire and Serbia in WWI.
Besides - the author writes at the end that “Russia would not risk confrontation over Slovenia, but it might over Ukraine, which could soon become a hot spot.” And that is not all that far-fetched.
I think NATO should save us… but from ourselves, mainly current government
WE chose… poorly!
uau, imagine a scenario where the WTC is attacked by the mad Strojan family, crashing into the building with 1979 Zastava, full ob home made explosives .. at that point all the minorities, as well as The Deleted would rise up against the american influence, which would give birth to a total kaos and NATO would be running to defend us .. and on the front pages of the magazine Delo, you would see Rupel in tears saying: I knew Bush was my friend ..
Oh, God… I didn’t get enough sleep .. N
What I can read between the lines is that it seems self-evident that for the “United States and the rest of the West” it would be inconceivably more odd to defend Slovenia (probably the oddest of the bunch of countries in this exotic and blurry part of the world the French nonchalantly call “les pays de l’est”) than to defend Denmark or Portugal.
Don´t mess with Slovenia, we have kranjska klobasa and we are not afraid to use it!
Hmm, maybe Michael’s pic isn’t that far-fetched. Maybe they send Blue Helmets to save the world from Turbo Folk
if, say, some militaristic nationalistic Croatian government decided that the whole Gulf of Piran, including Piran, should belong to Croatia, and, somehow with massive support from Russia (unlikely) rolled its tanks across the Dragonja in a brazen land-grab (a la Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait) - there might be a NATO response (unless Croatia has joined NATO by that time). But obviously Lourie was using the word “Slovenia” in the sense of “an insignificant East European country that no one gives a damn about”.
Funny … Article 5 has only been invoked ONCE since the U.S. ratified the NATO Treaty in 1949.
It was in response to 911.
(And back then, the right-wingers were all upset with NATO planes patrolling our East coast)
Well you all know that all of these dirt poor ex-communist countries are really just a Russian Trojan horse anyway, don’t you? So how can you not understand how having to defend such an ingrate would make a proud, freedom-loving American’s blood boil?
/republican mode off
Seriously though, I once read a comment on a republican forum reasoning that the EU is bad, because it’s the most convenient way for Russia to gain dominion again - just wait till they’re all assembled, then knock them down in one fell swoop. Talk about paranoia. The EU may have its flaws, but that ain’t one of ‘em.