7 ms·

Why does NATO still exist? It's existence was supposed to be to counter the Soviet threat. Now the threat is gone and NATO is still around. It shows that the So

Why does NATO still exist? It's existence was supposed to be to counter the Soviet threat. Now the threat is gone and NATO is still around. It shows that the Soviet excuse was just a pretext.

grabcocque 10y ago
Let's just imagine that a newly-emboldened Putin decides to annex part of another European country, like he got away with over Ukraine. Let's say some Baltic state, like Estonia. Wouldn't you feel safer knowing that country was under the NATO umbrella?
- fowlerpower 10y ago
  There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that any country in the NATO umbrella being hit would lead to the United States retaliating decisively. President trump would be advised by the generals he knows more than that he has to go in front of the American people and let them know why he has to take the actions he is taking. Sending US troops into Europe. Believe me, there is zero doubt, if NATO is hit its game over. Why does Putin cry about NATO so much?
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    The history of my country (Poland) tells me that military alliances are worth shit when someone decides to call the bluff. The Second World War started with France and Britain failing to fulfil their obligations when Hitler invaded Poland. Somehow I don't expect NATO troops to show up if Russian forces cross the Polish-Ukrainian border.
    - bad_user 10y ago
      I think the current situation with NATO is different than the alliances of WWII. Lets say that Russia invades Europe. If NATO doesn't respond, then the alliance is null and everybody fights for themselves. Which isn't a good situation to be in, given that countries in Europe don't have the capacity to take on Russia by themselves, I mean given our experience from WWII. We learn from mistakes and history teaches us that an invader will not be conservative about where to draw the line. The world also thought Germany will stop at Czechoslovakia too and they were wrong. And nowadays we also have nuclear weapons and during the Cold War the presence of NATO troops in an area was enough to deter the advancement of the soviets and vice versa.
      - alkonaut 10y ago
        > Lets say that Russia invades Europe. Russia can't (and doesn't want to) really "invade Europe". What they can do is effectively bring small parts of the baltics, perhaps a whole baltic state as a maximum, under the russian umbrella, and e.g. replace the government with a russian friendly one, put a military base or two there etc. They don't have the resources to hold "unfriendly territory" (their economy is bad enough as it is). So what would happen is things that would confuse the international community. Fraudulent elections. Violence in the streets. Politicians and journalists murdered. And then suddenly that state is Russian friendly i.e. "effectively part of Russia". What happened? Was it war? Was someone invaded? When? Is Article V invokable? Is Article V even written to cope with such a scenario? What if there was a proper democratic turn towards Russia? It's Ukraine all over again. We can't expect (even with Trump) to see massive use of force just because a few green men are shouting in a square somewhere. Or because an election seems dubious in Riga. But wait long enough, and it's fait accompli. The Russian friendly government installed will reject any offerings of military help, because now you are asking the russians whether they want the russians out of the Baltics! This is why the only working deterrent is to simply have massive Nato ground forces permanently in the Baltics. When you get Maidan square like things going on, you need OECD and NATO people on the ground already. They won't be admitted after a while. Article V should be explicitly clarified to include e.g. holding elections without a long enough notice, and doing it without OECD and NATO oversight.
    - Grangar 10y ago
      It would be a truly scary scenario either way. Vox explored a hypothetical invasion of Estonia [0], basically if military intervention happens both sides would be screwed (given that both sides will stick to their doctrine) [0] http://www.vox.com/2015/6/29/8858909/russia-war-flowchart http://www.vox.com/2015/6/29/8858909/russia-war-flowchart
    - GlennS 10y ago
      Wait, what? Britain and France declared war on Germany two days after it invaded Poland.
      - kgabis 10y ago
        They declared war and did nothing (hence names like Sitzkrieg or Phoney War). Since Polish defense strategy was based on assumption that UK and France will fulfill their obligations it was a much easier win for Germany than it could've been otherwise. I'm suprised it's not talked about more outside Poland, but this betrayal cost millions of lives.
        antientropic 10y ago
        What betrayal? The UK and France did go to war against Germany, but they were not in a position to invade Germany in 1939. France suffered more than 4 years of German occupation as a result of its decision to declare war on Germany, a pretty high price for honoring its obligations to Poland.
        kgabis 10y ago
        France did not honor it's obligations and if it wasn't in position to attack Germany then France shouldn't have made those guarantees (Maurice Gamelin's "bold relief offensive"). Thinking that Germany wouldn't have attacked France if war hadn't been declared is a bit naive.
    - bluetomcat 10y ago
      What the NATO expansion in Eastern Europe really did is that it disarmed these countries from their Warsaw-Pact era arsenal. We were forced to scrap a lot of missiles and reduce military personnel for a hypothetic defense from NATO.
  - tiatia 10y ago
    "There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that any country in the NATO umbrella being hit would lead to the United States retaliating decisively." How? http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2016/07/how-to-invade-baltic-countries-and-get.html http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2016/07/how-to-invad... Also, do you know what the UdSSR "ax theory" was? Or the "ed-escalation" strategy of the 90ies? Look at the map. The Baltic states can't be defended. At least not with the military that is there in the moment. Could they be taken back? Unlikely because Russia would immediately retaliate tactically (nuclear).
    - alkonaut 10y ago
      > The Baltic states can't be defended That's why deterrence is the only thing working. If the US even suggests it might not consider an attack on Latvia the same as an attack on Washington, then there is no deterrent. As you say, the Baltics can't be defended (at least not longer than 1-2 days) and there is no good strategy with Sweden and Finland outside NATO (Sweden accepts US use of bases - but would they in a crisis if Russia makes clear it will make Sweden a target?).
- alextheparrot 10y ago
  There is a reason why Ukraine is not in NATO, which is because putting everyone under NATO does not necessarily mean everyone is safer.
  - bad_user 10y ago
    Isn't Ukraine to blame for derailing the NATO membership? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations We are talking about a key component of the former Soviet Union, with a big chunk of their population being pro-Russia, as they share much of their history with Russia, so even before the soviets they were part of the Russian Empire and of the Kievan Rus' state. Don't get me wrong, I've very sympathetic towards Ukraine's citizens that are pro-EU, however if I'm seeing any country having problems in joining NATO, it's definitely them.
    - alextheparrot 10y ago
      Sort of. Russia needed to annex Crimea prior to the Ukraine joining NATO, which was becoming more possible after the revolution in Ukraine. Russia didn't need to act prior because it isn't threatened if the Ukraine isn't looking towards joining NATO. Crimea is hugely important to Russia because of its port access, which is why Turkey is now becoming more important to Russia (If they have the Crimea ports, Turkey controls Mediterranean access). A parallel story for the Americans would be if China suddenly signed a military treaty with Panama, which means that they could presumably restrict sea access significantly.
      - pabloski 10y ago
        Revolution? It is called coup d'etat, whose only outcome has been the enrichment of oligarchs and the utter destruction of the ukrainian national identity. Now Ukraine is a mix of foreign interests, polish born oligarchs, nazi battalions ( the so-called volunteers ). What is there in for the people? Famine, high prices for gas and electricity, the Ministry of Truth ( yes there is such a thing in the new shiny "democratic" Ukraine ). Ok, keep in mind that you can go to jail there for speaking in russian tongue.
- tdkl 10y ago
  You might want to stop imagining things and keep up with the reality. Because the reality is that Russia has basically no military stations around the planet in foreign countries and yet is constantly portrayed as aggressor.
  - alkonaut 10y ago
    > and yet is constantly portrayed as aggressor. And Nato is of course "expanding", "cornering" and "surrounding" Russia too. Just like a map makes obvious...?
    - seppin 10y ago
      Allowing countries into your military alliance, at their request, is not "aggression". I feel silly even typing this
  - ptaipale 10y ago
    Well, the bases aren't actual aggression, you know. They're generally built based on agreements with host countries. Most often the host countries enthusiastically welcome them. Invading Georgia is aggression. Invading Ukraine is aggression. Sending "little green men" over is. Sending anti-aircraft batteries to shoot down civilian planes over the "Novorossiya" puppet regime's controlled area is.
    - googletazer 10y ago
      Yeah I saw that CNN interview where the girl from Ossetia was telling what actually happened and then got cut off for "technical difficulties" :). Georgia got off easy. As for Ukraine - yeah Russia occupied Crimea, but it was either that or risk a crack that could disintegrate it entirely. Israel struck first in the 7 day war as well, and good that they did, because otherwise they wouldnt exist. History is full of such examples.
      - seppin 10y ago
        wow, you know this isn't infowars or zerohedge, right?
- emodendroket 10y ago
  I don't really feel safer knowing the US would go to war with a nuclear power over a bunch of Eastern European republics, no.
  - zo1 10y ago
    We all know how things ended up last time "big" countries decided to honor protection treaties with small nations.
  - alkonaut 10y ago
    The safety comes from the idea that they would, which is what keeps the bad thing from happening. If there is any doubt that the US would go to war, that ironically increases the risk that they would. So basically - one says one would definitely go to war. Simply because then you maximize the chance of avoiding it. Donald Trumps administration didn't get the memo I think, when they started being vague on who might be helped by Article 5.
    - emodendroket 10y ago
      Well, that's the theory, yeah. I think there's been some question about some of the newer NATO members for some time though. http://www.interpretermag.com/americans-are-prepared-to-die-for-latvia-nuland-says/ http://www.interpretermag.com/americans-are-prepared-to-die-...
      - alkonaut 10y ago
        > I think there's been some question about some of the newer NATO members for some time though Perhaps. And surely any country would ponder whether it would be willing to send thousands of young people to their deaths for any cause, regardless of what agreements were signed. But the point is these things aren't supposed to be discussed in public by the parties that need to demonstrate resolve.
        emodendroket 10y ago
        Unless you think the Russian government is filled with incompetent idiots I don't think they're incapable of understanding American resistance to the idea of war over Latvia regardless of what the President says.
elthran 10y ago
A pretext for what exactly? I have no issue with the existence of a military cooperation agreement to defend each other in the event of war breaking out, and fail to see how it would be a bad idea.
- dajohnson89 10y ago
  FWIW, I think that complex military alliances are a major reason why WWI was so expansive.
  - bad_user 10y ago
    In case of a World War, military alliances are going to happen whether you want it or not, with the difference that weaker countries will be up for grabs, like Czechoslovakia in WWII. And even Poland actually, UK declaring war after Poland's invasion being sort of a surprise for Hitler.
    - dajohnson89 10y ago
      You might be begging the question though. I'm saying that a priori alliances are the cause. You're saying they are the effect.
Scarblac 10y ago
Russia is the Soviet Union's continuation, and it still has a huge arsenal of nuclear weapons and is currently fighting in and occupying a European country. The threat isn't gone at all.
- RobertoG 10y ago
  So, what should happen so "the threat" is gone?
  - JumpCrisscross 10y ago
    Short of world dominion, you're never going to eliminate threats. The best one can manage is to manage them.
  - Scarblac 10y ago
    When Russia becomes a normal country, with a government that doesn't feel the need to threaten its neighbours all the time.
  - bad_user 10y ago
    Russia is a hegemony. China is a hegemony too. Both will always be threats. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemony https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemony And yes, the US is also a threat to Europe and vice versa, except that historically the US culture, business interests and political climate has been aligned with that of Western Europe, hence it makes a lot of sense to have alliances. IMO the threat of these hegemonies is precisely why EU makes a lot of sense. Divided we'll inevitably fail.
    - aaron-lebo 10y ago
      I don't think Russia or China fit the traditional label for hegemon. They are regional or great powers that have a lot of influence over certain countries near them, but even that is limited. Russia dominates Belarus but not Poland. China has clout throughout Southeast Asia but SK and Japan are rivals. The only hegemon is the US like the British Empire before it.
Spooky23 10y ago
Russia and Europe itself. The US basically has access to the command control infrastructure of the NATO allies. Our officers know their officers. We know their capability.
Svenskunganka 10y ago
It exists for reasons such as 9/11, which was the only time article 5 was invoked, and European military was sent to aid US military actions.
literallycancer 10y ago
>Now the threat is gone Ukrainians, Georgians, Chechens and many others would disagree.
- pabloski 10y ago
  Georgians? The ones who attacked the russian peace keepers in South Ossetia to ( as said by Saakashvili in person ) humiliate Putin!
  - seppin 10y ago
    Do tell, how does a country 'attack' itself? Russia is playing a dangerous game chipping away land from it's neighbors in the name of "protecting" ethnic Russians
- konart 10y ago
  I won't touch Ukrainian and Georgian part, but Chechnya is out of context here, honestly.
  - literallycancer 10y ago
    Carpet bombing cities is fine then? Not a threat at all, right?
alkonaut 10y ago
> the Soviet threat. Now the threat is gone We call it the "russian threat" now. It's the same as the old one.
seppin 10y ago
> Why does NATO still exist? It's existence was supposed to be to counter the Soviet threat. Now the threat is gone and NATO is still around. It shows that the Soviet excuse was just a pretext. Ask Eastern Ukraine, or Crimea, or Georgia, or Syria, or Tajikistan, or Moldova. Or any of the Baltic states now planning on having to fight for their lives.

Why does NATO still exist? It's existence was supposed to be to counter the Soviet threat. Now the threat is gone and NATO is still around. It shows that the Soviet excuse was just a pretext.

grabcocque 10y ago

Let's just imagine that a newly-emboldened Putin decides to annex part of another European country, like he got away with over Ukraine. Let's say some Baltic state, like Estonia. Wouldn't you feel safer knowing that country was under the NATO umbrella?

fowlerpower 10y ago
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that any country in the NATO umbrella being hit would lead to the United States retaliating decisively. President trump would be advised by the generals he knows more than that he has to go in front of the American people and let them know why he has to take the actions he is taking. Sending US troops into Europe. Believe me, there is zero doubt, if NATO is hit its game over. Why does Putin cry about NATO so much?
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  The history of my country (Poland) tells me that military alliances are worth shit when someone decides to call the bluff. The Second World War started with France and Britain failing to fulfil their obligations when Hitler invaded Poland. Somehow I don't expect NATO troops to show up if Russian forces cross the Polish-Ukrainian border.
  - bad_user 10y ago
    I think the current situation with NATO is different than the alliances of WWII. Lets say that Russia invades Europe. If NATO doesn't respond, then the alliance is null and everybody fights for themselves. Which isn't a good situation to be in, given that countries in Europe don't have the capacity to take on Russia by themselves, I mean given our experience from WWII. We learn from mistakes and history teaches us that an invader will not be conservative about where to draw the line. The world also thought Germany will stop at Czechoslovakia too and they were wrong. And nowadays we also have nuclear weapons and during the Cold War the presence of NATO troops in an area was enough to deter the advancement of the soviets and vice versa.
    - alkonaut 10y ago
      > Lets say that Russia invades Europe. Russia can't (and doesn't want to) really "invade Europe". What they can do is effectively bring small parts of the baltics, perhaps a whole baltic state as a maximum, under the russian umbrella, and e.g. replace the government with a russian friendly one, put a military base or two there etc. They don't have the resources to hold "unfriendly territory" (their economy is bad enough as it is). So what would happen is things that would confuse the international community. Fraudulent elections. Violence in the streets. Politicians and journalists murdered. And then suddenly that state is Russian friendly i.e. "effectively part of Russia". What happened? Was it war? Was someone invaded? When? Is Article V invokable? Is Article V even written to cope with such a scenario? What if there was a proper democratic turn towards Russia? It's Ukraine all over again. We can't expect (even with Trump) to see massive use of force just because a few green men are shouting in a square somewhere. Or because an election seems dubious in Riga. But wait long enough, and it's fait accompli. The Russian friendly government installed will reject any offerings of military help, because now you are asking the russians whether they want the russians out of the Baltics! This is why the only working deterrent is to simply have massive Nato ground forces permanently in the Baltics. When you get Maidan square like things going on, you need OECD and NATO people on the ground already. They won't be admitted after a while. Article V should be explicitly clarified to include e.g. holding elections without a long enough notice, and doing it without OECD and NATO oversight.
  - Grangar 10y ago
    It would be a truly scary scenario either way. Vox explored a hypothetical invasion of Estonia [0], basically if military intervention happens both sides would be screwed (given that both sides will stick to their doctrine) [0] http://www.vox.com/2015/6/29/8858909/russia-war-flowchart http://www.vox.com/2015/6/29/8858909/russia-war-flowchart
  - GlennS 10y ago
    Wait, what? Britain and France declared war on Germany two days after it invaded Poland.
    - kgabis 10y ago
      They declared war and did nothing (hence names like Sitzkrieg or Phoney War). Since Polish defense strategy was based on assumption that UK and France will fulfill their obligations it was a much easier win for Germany than it could've been otherwise. I'm suprised it's not talked about more outside Poland, but this betrayal cost millions of lives.
      - antientropic 10y ago
        What betrayal? The UK and France did go to war against Germany, but they were not in a position to invade Germany in 1939. France suffered more than 4 years of German occupation as a result of its decision to declare war on Germany, a pretty high price for honoring its obligations to Poland.
        kgabis 10y ago
        France did not honor it's obligations and if it wasn't in position to attack Germany then France shouldn't have made those guarantees (Maurice Gamelin's "bold relief offensive"). Thinking that Germany wouldn't have attacked France if war hadn't been declared is a bit naive.
  - bluetomcat 10y ago
    What the NATO expansion in Eastern Europe really did is that it disarmed these countries from their Warsaw-Pact era arsenal. We were forced to scrap a lot of missiles and reduce military personnel for a hypothetic defense from NATO.
- tiatia 10y ago
  "There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that any country in the NATO umbrella being hit would lead to the United States retaliating decisively." How? http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2016/07/how-to-invade-baltic-countries-and-get.html http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2016/07/how-to-invad... Also, do you know what the UdSSR "ax theory" was? Or the "ed-escalation" strategy of the 90ies? Look at the map. The Baltic states can't be defended. At least not with the military that is there in the moment. Could they be taken back? Unlikely because Russia would immediately retaliate tactically (nuclear).
  - alkonaut 10y ago
    > The Baltic states can't be defended That's why deterrence is the only thing working. If the US even suggests it might not consider an attack on Latvia the same as an attack on Washington, then there is no deterrent. As you say, the Baltics can't be defended (at least not longer than 1-2 days) and there is no good strategy with Sweden and Finland outside NATO (Sweden accepts US use of bases - but would they in a crisis if Russia makes clear it will make Sweden a target?).
alextheparrot 10y ago
There is a reason why Ukraine is not in NATO, which is because putting everyone under NATO does not necessarily mean everyone is safer.
- bad_user 10y ago
  Isn't Ukraine to blame for derailing the NATO membership? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations We are talking about a key component of the former Soviet Union, with a big chunk of their population being pro-Russia, as they share much of their history with Russia, so even before the soviets they were part of the Russian Empire and of the Kievan Rus' state. Don't get me wrong, I've very sympathetic towards Ukraine's citizens that are pro-EU, however if I'm seeing any country having problems in joining NATO, it's definitely them.
  - alextheparrot 10y ago
    Sort of. Russia needed to annex Crimea prior to the Ukraine joining NATO, which was becoming more possible after the revolution in Ukraine. Russia didn't need to act prior because it isn't threatened if the Ukraine isn't looking towards joining NATO. Crimea is hugely important to Russia because of its port access, which is why Turkey is now becoming more important to Russia (If they have the Crimea ports, Turkey controls Mediterranean access). A parallel story for the Americans would be if China suddenly signed a military treaty with Panama, which means that they could presumably restrict sea access significantly.
    - pabloski 10y ago
      Revolution? It is called coup d'etat, whose only outcome has been the enrichment of oligarchs and the utter destruction of the ukrainian national identity. Now Ukraine is a mix of foreign interests, polish born oligarchs, nazi battalions ( the so-called volunteers ). What is there in for the people? Famine, high prices for gas and electricity, the Ministry of Truth ( yes there is such a thing in the new shiny "democratic" Ukraine ). Ok, keep in mind that you can go to jail there for speaking in russian tongue.
tdkl 10y ago
You might want to stop imagining things and keep up with the reality. Because the reality is that Russia has basically no military stations around the planet in foreign countries and yet is constantly portrayed as aggressor.
- alkonaut 10y ago
  > and yet is constantly portrayed as aggressor. And Nato is of course "expanding", "cornering" and "surrounding" Russia too. Just like a map makes obvious...?
  - seppin 10y ago
    Allowing countries into your military alliance, at their request, is not "aggression". I feel silly even typing this
- ptaipale 10y ago
  Well, the bases aren't actual aggression, you know. They're generally built based on agreements with host countries. Most often the host countries enthusiastically welcome them. Invading Georgia is aggression. Invading Ukraine is aggression. Sending "little green men" over is. Sending anti-aircraft batteries to shoot down civilian planes over the "Novorossiya" puppet regime's controlled area is.
  - googletazer 10y ago
    Yeah I saw that CNN interview where the girl from Ossetia was telling what actually happened and then got cut off for "technical difficulties" :). Georgia got off easy. As for Ukraine - yeah Russia occupied Crimea, but it was either that or risk a crack that could disintegrate it entirely. Israel struck first in the 7 day war as well, and good that they did, because otherwise they wouldnt exist. History is full of such examples.
    - seppin 10y ago
      wow, you know this isn't infowars or zerohedge, right?
emodendroket 10y ago
I don't really feel safer knowing the US would go to war with a nuclear power over a bunch of Eastern European republics, no.
- zo1 10y ago
  We all know how things ended up last time "big" countries decided to honor protection treaties with small nations.
- alkonaut 10y ago
  The safety comes from the idea that they would, which is what keeps the bad thing from happening. If there is any doubt that the US would go to war, that ironically increases the risk that they would. So basically - one says one would definitely go to war. Simply because then you maximize the chance of avoiding it. Donald Trumps administration didn't get the memo I think, when they started being vague on who might be helped by Article 5.
  - emodendroket 10y ago
    Well, that's the theory, yeah. I think there's been some question about some of the newer NATO members for some time though. http://www.interpretermag.com/americans-are-prepared-to-die-for-latvia-nuland-says/ http://www.interpretermag.com/americans-are-prepared-to-die-...
    - alkonaut 10y ago
      > I think there's been some question about some of the newer NATO members for some time though Perhaps. And surely any country would ponder whether it would be willing to send thousands of young people to their deaths for any cause, regardless of what agreements were signed. But the point is these things aren't supposed to be discussed in public by the parties that need to demonstrate resolve.
      - emodendroket 10y ago
        Unless you think the Russian government is filled with incompetent idiots I don't think they're incapable of understanding American resistance to the idea of war over Latvia regardless of what the President says.

elthran 10y ago

A pretext for what exactly? I have no issue with the existence of a military cooperation agreement to defend each other in the event of war breaking out, and fail to see how it would be a bad idea.

dajohnson89 10y ago
FWIW, I think that complex military alliances are a major reason why WWI was so expansive.
- bad_user 10y ago
  In case of a World War, military alliances are going to happen whether you want it or not, with the difference that weaker countries will be up for grabs, like Czechoslovakia in WWII. And even Poland actually, UK declaring war after Poland's invasion being sort of a surprise for Hitler.
  - dajohnson89 10y ago
    You might be begging the question though. I'm saying that a priori alliances are the cause. You're saying they are the effect.

Scarblac 10y ago

Russia is the Soviet Union's continuation, and it still has a huge arsenal of nuclear weapons and is currently fighting in and occupying a European country. The threat isn't gone at all.

RobertoG 10y ago
So, what should happen so "the threat" is gone?
- JumpCrisscross 10y ago
  Short of world dominion, you're never going to eliminate threats. The best one can manage is to manage them.
- Scarblac 10y ago
  When Russia becomes a normal country, with a government that doesn't feel the need to threaten its neighbours all the time.
- bad_user 10y ago
  Russia is a hegemony. China is a hegemony too. Both will always be threats. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemony https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemony And yes, the US is also a threat to Europe and vice versa, except that historically the US culture, business interests and political climate has been aligned with that of Western Europe, hence it makes a lot of sense to have alliances. IMO the threat of these hegemonies is precisely why EU makes a lot of sense. Divided we'll inevitably fail.
  - aaron-lebo 10y ago
    I don't think Russia or China fit the traditional label for hegemon. They are regional or great powers that have a lot of influence over certain countries near them, but even that is limited. Russia dominates Belarus but not Poland. China has clout throughout Southeast Asia but SK and Japan are rivals. The only hegemon is the US like the British Empire before it.

Spooky23 10y ago

Russia and Europe itself. The US basically has access to the command control infrastructure of the NATO allies. Our officers know their officers. We know their capability.

Svenskunganka 10y ago

It exists for reasons such as 9/11, which was the only time article 5 was invoked, and European military was sent to aid US military actions.

literallycancer 10y ago

>Now the threat is gone Ukrainians, Georgians, Chechens and many others would disagree.

pabloski 10y ago
Georgians? The ones who attacked the russian peace keepers in South Ossetia to ( as said by Saakashvili in person ) humiliate Putin!
- seppin 10y ago
  Do tell, how does a country 'attack' itself? Russia is playing a dangerous game chipping away land from it's neighbors in the name of "protecting" ethnic Russians
konart 10y ago
I won't touch Ukrainian and Georgian part, but Chechnya is out of context here, honestly.
- literallycancer 10y ago
  Carpet bombing cities is fine then? Not a threat at all, right?

alkonaut 10y ago

> the Soviet threat. Now the threat is gone We call it the "russian threat" now. It's the same as the old one.

seppin 10y ago

> Why does NATO still exist? It's existence was supposed to be to counter the Soviet threat. Now the threat is gone and NATO is still around. It shows that the Soviet excuse was just a pretext. Ask Eastern Ukraine, or Crimea, or Georgia, or Syria, or Tajikistan, or Moldova. Or any of the Baltic states now planning on having to fight for their lives.