Nyet. NATO was originally formed to provide security against the Soviet Union.The Baltics joined NATO and it has been peaceful here ever since. Anyone that thinks joining NATO is some kind of aggression is bonkers, it's a defensive pact plain and simple.
Of course you disagree, you might as well be a bought-and-paid-for Russian shill at this point. I see no other possible way for someone to conclude that Russia is doing anything other than aggressive, revanchistic expansion.I disagree.
And, I don't believe US administrations were brought up at all, so I don't know why the current administration and their supporting policy has anything to do with what's been discussed so far.
"The possibility that NATO enlargement—particularly but not exclusively to Ukraine—helped cause the Russia-Ukraine conflict, instead suggesting without quite saying that homegrown Russian “imperialism” is to blame. In turn, you call for the alliance to admit Ukraine once the conflict ends. I don’t think either this diagnosis of the war’s origins or the recommendation for NATO policy going forward is quite right.
For sure, Russian imperialism is a driver of Russian behavior. Still, whereas you present Russia’s imperial impulse as a better explanation for its invasion of Ukraine than NATO enlargement, I see these as complementary. Russian leaders and many Western analysts warned from the 1990s onward that NATO enlargement would inflame Russian nationalism and imperil East-West relations. Correlation is not causation, but it is striking that what former Russian president Boris Yeltsin and others warned about is exactly what has happened. Put another way, Russian nationalism and imperialism did not develop in a vacuum. By providing nationalists such as President Vladimir Putin with a cause and challenging Russian claims to influence in its near abroad, NATO enlargement shaped the thuggish Russian nationalism we see today. Further NATO enlargement to Ukraine promises to reinforce the situation by playing into the basest of Russian identity." - Joshua Shifrinson
Do you enjoy reiterating what other people say in a different manner? That is exactly what OKNewPlan just said. The Russian Federation is the successor to the Soviet Union.Nyet. NATO was originally formed to provide security against the Soviet Union.
How is this relevant to Russia's invasion of Ukraine?Relevant info drop
Yes, but if this can soak into your water logged brain... one's defenses are another's aggression. As useless as NATO is, it was established with good intentions go defend against the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union sees this as an act of aggression towards itself hence seeing NATOs continue advancement to the East amongst its borders to being a hostile act.Do you enjoy reiterating what other people say in a different manner? That is exactly what OKNewPlan just said. The Russian Federation is the successor to the Soviet Union.
"The possibility that NATO enlargement—particularly but not exclusively to Ukraine—helped cause the Russia-Ukraine conflict, instead suggesting without quite saying that homegrown Russian “imperialism” is to blame. In turn, you call for the alliance to admit Ukraine once the conflict ends. I don’t think either this diagnosis of the war’s origins or the recommendation for NATO policy going forward is quite right.
For sure, Russian imperialism is a driver of Russian behavior. Still, whereas you present Russia’s imperial impulse as a better explanation for its invasion of Ukraine than NATO enlargement, I see these as complementary. Russian leaders and many Western analysts warned from the 1990s onward that NATO enlargement would inflame Russian nationalism and imperil East-West relations. Correlation is not causation, but it is striking that what former Russian president Boris Yeltsin and others warned about is exactly what has happened. Put another way, Russian nationalism and imperialism did not develop in a vacuum. By providing nationalists such as President Vladimir Putin with a cause and challenging Russian claims to influence in its near abroad, NATO enlargement shaped the thuggish Russian nationalism we see today. Further NATO enlargement to Ukraine promises to reinforce the situation by playing into the basest of Russian identity." - Joshua Shifrinson
Nyet. NATO was originally formed to provide security against the Soviet Union.
If you think NATO is still a good thing, ya is goofy. It started off good, sure. But it has since outgrown its usefulness.NATO served multiple purposes. Lord Ismay said it best about NATO that it had been created to:
“keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.”
NATO also served to prevent any member states from reverting to or adopting authoritarianism (and is falling short in this regard lately).
NATO also prevents conflict between its member states. For instance, Germany, Britain, and France haven't gone to war with each other in eighty years. This is the longest those three countries have gone without armed conflict between them in centuries.
If Russia wasn't so keen on being an aggressive warmongering state to its neighbors then perhaps these countries wouldn't feel the need to join a defensive alliance. Russia invaded Georgia and the world did nothing. Russia then invaded Ukraine in 2014 and annexed its territory and the world still did nothing. Now that Russia is invading Ukraine again the world finally decided that enough is enough.Yes, but if this can soak into your water logged brain... one's defenses are another's aggression. As useless as NATO is, it was established with good intentions go defend against the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union sees this as an act of aggression towards itself hence seeing NATOs continue advancement to the East amongst its borders to being a hostile act.
At least I agree with you here. Britain's Royal Navy is a shadow of its former self with its only redeeming feature being the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. Germany is a neutered dog, although that is probably by design ; best that German autism be spent towards manufacturing heavy machinery I guess. France is marginally better than Britain and Germany but they suffer from being intractably French.The reason Germany, Britain, and France haven't gone to war with each other is because they're happy that America has been protecting them since then aaaaaand footing the bill .
It never ceases to amaze me how many brainwashed domestic Americans think this is true.If you think NATO is still a good thing, ya is goofy. It started off good, sure. But it has since outgrown its usefulness.
No, just an American. And yes, it's bad. I'd say borderline useless but every other country in NATO benefits from it except the US and it's just an obsolete union of other shitter countries.It never ceases to amaze me how many brainwashed domestic Americans think this is true.
I guess Finland and Sweden recently broke decades of foreign policy neutralism because NATO is so useless.
NATO is a relic of a bygone era, this is true. If I had my way the US would retreat from much of the world and stop being the world's police. Lord knows that the countries that benefit from us ( aka all of them ) don't appreciate the Pax Americana.No, just an American. And yes, it's bad. I'd say borderline useless but every other country in NATO benefits from it except the US and it's just an obsolete union of other shitter countries.
I wonder where the Pearl Harbor sequel will be in order for USA to re-learn the same lesson again.No, just an American. And yes, it's bad. I'd say borderline useless but every other country in NATO benefits from it except the US and it's just an obsolete union of other shitter countries.