What exactly is the relevance of this discussion here? These things are not reciprocal! They just arent! NATO was not the cause of this conflict. NATO would ha

What exactly is the relevance of this discussion here? These things are not reciprocal! They just arent! NATO was not the cause of this conflict. NATO would have stopped this conflict had Ukraine been a member. NATO is a force of stability. Russia is waging a war of extermination on Ukraine. Their sin was that they wanted to align with the west. Russia wants to genocide away all nations it consider taints Russian soil, what ever the international borders say. Either you choose to go along with this (Fine, destroy their cultural identity, go ahead, it's your right. Let them kidnap the children, rape the women and - steal their washing machines?) or you do something to counter the Russian threat. I presume most would prefer to live in a world that at least attempts to stop genocide. There are two options here - NATO or nuclear proliferation. Ukraine war showed that barring obvious superiority in conflict, nuclear threat is the only guarantor of state sovereignty. Without more nukes, NATO is a necessary guarantor of state sovereignty at each state bordering Russia by providing credible force. Russia has proved this theory themselves by assaulting every non-NATO country at it's borders. How could countries like Estonia, Lithuania or Latvia defend themselves without a NATO alliance? Should they get a nuke? Or should they just yield to Russian rape, pillage and annihilation of cultural distinctiveness? For those who like Star Trek - This is EXACTLY a situation where the Russian states behaves like the Borg. You oppose the Borg. Not say "yeah, you have right to do that because you are ... mean?" The Russian state also behaves like a fascist villain but that's kind of obvious already.