4 ms·

>NATO is first and foremost a tool of American power in Europe and against Russia Sure, but that's only because Russian and US foreign policy goals are so oppo

>NATO is first and foremost a tool of American power in Europe and against Russia Sure, but that's only because Russian and US foreign policy goals are so opposed. Other than their territorial ambitions in Europe this need not be the case.

mytailorisrich 5y ago
Not 'only'. That's key. Different countries have different interests. Powerful enough countries can remain independent and pursue them as they see fit. The US want to keep control of Europe, that's partly what NATO is for. There's no reason for Russia to be OK with that. In fact no European country should be OK with that but for historically reasons I think they reckon that this is better than the fear of letting the "good old ways" (i.e. France or Germany trying to take over) come back, although Germany has pretty much taken over by peaceful means at this point, especially since Brexit...
- bigbizisverywyz 5y ago
  > In fact no European country should be OK with that Russia's brutal annexations in the east following WWII pretty much assured that all European countries were, in fact OK with it.
  - mytailorisrich 5y ago
    WWII was the result of Germany trying to take over the continent. That led to Eastern Europe being invaded/liberated by the USSR and Western Europe being invaded/liberated by the US. It's not correct to say that all Western European countries were/are OK with US power and presence. The major powers were divided on that. Germany obviously did not really have any say, France did not want the US to stay, the UK thought that it'd help them look more important than they had become. But smaller countries may see the US as a guarantee against larger neighbours trying to invade again, as I mentioned, a bit like South Korea does.
    - Viliam1234 5y ago
      > WWII was the result of Germany trying to take over the continent. Germany, and also that other country. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pac...

mytailorisrich 5y ago

Not 'only'. That's key. Different countries have different interests. Powerful enough countries can remain independent and pursue them as they see fit. The US want to keep control of Europe, that's partly what NATO is for. There's no reason for Russia to be OK with that. In fact no European country should be OK with that but for historically reasons I think they reckon that this is better than the fear of letting the "good old ways" (i.e. France or Germany trying to take over) come back, although Germany has pretty much taken over by peaceful means at this point, especially since Brexit...

bigbizisverywyz 5y ago
> In fact no European country should be OK with that Russia's brutal annexations in the east following WWII pretty much assured that all European countries were, in fact OK with it.
- mytailorisrich 5y ago
  WWII was the result of Germany trying to take over the continent. That led to Eastern Europe being invaded/liberated by the USSR and Western Europe being invaded/liberated by the US. It's not correct to say that all Western European countries were/are OK with US power and presence. The major powers were divided on that. Germany obviously did not really have any say, France did not want the US to stay, the UK thought that it'd help them look more important than they had become. But smaller countries may see the US as a guarantee against larger neighbours trying to invade again, as I mentioned, a bit like South Korea does.
  - Viliam1234 5y ago
    > WWII was the result of Germany trying to take over the continent. Germany, and also that other country. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pac...