4 ms·

I've heard others calling it "an article of faith", not just Farage. Well, NATO's existence is not preventing Russia's aggression assuming people believe Putin

I've heard others calling it "an article of faith", not just Farage. Well, NATO's existence is not preventing Russia's aggression assuming people believe Putin is crazy, a murderer, soulless, a war criminal, etc.; it's provoking it. If there was no NATO, Russia would be focusing on economic partnership, not feeling cornered by an obsoleted since 1991 alliance, which is increasing the member state's risks as now Russia builds alliances on the East. As a Bulgarian, I really doubt NATO will protect Bulgaria if Turkey or Russia attack our territory, so, pretty much to us this alliance is useless as it earsed our army and left our security in the hands of NATO, which member states have their security interest as top priority. We've prepaid 8 F-16 Block 70 years ago and they got severely delayed - just got an approval by congres (why was that necessary?!) for 8 more. So far, all we've got is a webpage [0] - not jets at least 2 years from now! Also, should I mention that Article 5 has never been tested yet? Also, if Trump wins in 2024, interesting thigns may happen to NATO then! [0]: https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/f-16/f-16-bulgaria.html https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/f-16/f-16-bulg...

sofixa 5y ago
It's a confidence and trust thing thing. If NATO doesn't protect any of its members in case of attack , even Bulgaria, even against Turkey, NATO is dead - nobody would ever trust it and the alliance will fall apart. ( Of course for Bulgaria that would be of limited impact because there's the EU mutual defence clause). Yes, a Trump like character in the White House might refuse to help, but the US isn't the only NATO member. > Also, should I mention that Article 5 has never been tested yet It has, the US invoked it after 9/11 As for you presumptions about NATO and Russia, you're just guessing, same as anybody. However seeing Russian atrocities across the world, I'm very happy there's an alliance containing them. They can't use NATO's existence as an excuse for their war crimes in Ukraine and you shouldn't be using that excuse for them. Their narrative has been that Ukraine isn't a real country. Without NATO, do you think they wouldn't have said the Baltics, Poland, and who knows who else also aren't real countries?

sofixa 5y ago

It's a confidence and trust thing thing. If NATO doesn't protect any of its members in case of attack , even Bulgaria, even against Turkey, NATO is dead - nobody would ever trust it and the alliance will fall apart. ( Of course for Bulgaria that would be of limited impact because there's the EU mutual defence clause). Yes, a Trump like character in the White House might refuse to help, but the US isn't the only NATO member. > Also, should I mention that Article 5 has never been tested yet It has, the US invoked it after 9/11 As for you presumptions about NATO and Russia, you're just guessing, same as anybody. However seeing Russian atrocities across the world, I'm very happy there's an alliance containing them. They can't use NATO's existence as an excuse for their war crimes in Ukraine and you shouldn't be using that excuse for them. Their narrative has been that Ukraine isn't a real country. Without NATO, do you think they wouldn't have said the Baltics, Poland, and who knows who else also aren't real countries?