5 ms·

This is both Russia invading its neighbour and a proxy war between NATO and Russia. It doesn’t have to be one of the other. NATO and its allies are directly pro

This is both Russia invading its neighbour and a proxy war between NATO and Russia. It doesn’t have to be one of the other. NATO and its allies are directly propping up Ukraine which would have collapsed without them and they do that mostly to curtail Russia’s ambitions which is fine. NATO is first and foremost a military alliance setup to contain the western expansion of the USSR. It’s a strategic alliance. It’s defensive in as much as a military alliance can be. What the US is using NATO for now that the USSR is no more and what is the EU getting out of it are actually very valid questions.

CamperBob2 3y ago
What the US is using NATO for now that the USSR is no more and what is the EU getting out of it are actually very valid questions. They were very valid questions up until the Ukraine invasion revealed Russia to be the mustachioed villain we were always told they were. Now nobody questions the need for NATO. Good job, Mr. Putin, your "Recruiter of the Year" plaque is on the way.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
_kbh_ 3y ago
> What the US is using NATO for now that the USSR is no more and what is the EU getting out of it are actually very valid questions. Countries still need protecting from the remnants of the USSR's aggression, mainly Russian aggression. If NATO didn't exist you can be sure that Russias ambition would not stop at countries like Ukraine.
- WastingMyTime89 3y ago
  > Countries still need protecting Countries don’t need protecting. Countries should aim to protect themselves. The EU doesn’t need the US for its protection and should have invested in a proper army decades ago. It’s obvious that the main benefit for the USA is that NATO dissuades the EU to actually be a power. That some countries in the east are happy to play lapdogs is a major issue.
  - _kbh_ 3y ago
    > Countries don’t need protecting. Countries should aim to protect themselves. The EU doesn’t need the US for its protection and should have invested in a proper army decades ago. It's simply not possible from some countries to protect themselves for other larger aggressive countries (such as Russia) that can both out spend them and have many more bodies to throw at the problem. A collective defensive alliance in this cases makes sense as both a deterrence to any possible belligerents and as a practical measure if someone does try something.
    - WastingMyTime89 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - _kbh_ 3y ago
        > Can you still call protectorates country? They are sovereign in name only. No one is NATO is a 'protectorate' this is absurd on the face of it. Why do you think its bad that smaller countries in Europe that have historically been invaded and dominated by Russia should not be in a alliance that allows themselves to effectively protect themselves from threats like Russia?.
        WastingMyTime89 3y ago
        > No one is NATO is a 'protectorate' this is absurd on the face of it. If you can’t defend yourself and have to rely on a foreign power to do so, you are de facto a protectorate like it or not. That’s the case of at least the Baltic states in Europe and could probably be extended to other former USSR republics in the east.
        _kbh_ 3y ago
        > If you can’t defend yourself and have to rely on a foreign power to do so, you are de facto a protectorate like it or not. That’s the case of at least the Baltic states in Europe and could probably be extended to other former USSR republics in the east. This implies that _anyone_ who receives any military aid is a protectorate which imply that states like Russia are a protectorate of Iran

CamperBob2 3y ago

What the US is using NATO for now that the USSR is no more and what is the EU getting out of it are actually very valid questions. They were very valid questions up until the Ukraine invasion revealed Russia to be the mustachioed villain we were always told they were. Now nobody questions the need for NATO. Good job, Mr. Putin, your "Recruiter of the Year" plaque is on the way.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

_kbh_ 3y ago

> What the US is using NATO for now that the USSR is no more and what is the EU getting out of it are actually very valid questions. Countries still need protecting from the remnants of the USSR's aggression, mainly Russian aggression. If NATO didn't exist you can be sure that Russias ambition would not stop at countries like Ukraine.

WastingMyTime89 3y ago
> Countries still need protecting Countries don’t need protecting. Countries should aim to protect themselves. The EU doesn’t need the US for its protection and should have invested in a proper army decades ago. It’s obvious that the main benefit for the USA is that NATO dissuades the EU to actually be a power. That some countries in the east are happy to play lapdogs is a major issue.
- _kbh_ 3y ago
  > Countries don’t need protecting. Countries should aim to protect themselves. The EU doesn’t need the US for its protection and should have invested in a proper army decades ago. It's simply not possible from some countries to protect themselves for other larger aggressive countries (such as Russia) that can both out spend them and have many more bodies to throw at the problem. A collective defensive alliance in this cases makes sense as both a deterrence to any possible belligerents and as a practical measure if someone does try something.
  - WastingMyTime89 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - _kbh_ 3y ago
      > Can you still call protectorates country? They are sovereign in name only. No one is NATO is a 'protectorate' this is absurd on the face of it. Why do you think its bad that smaller countries in Europe that have historically been invaded and dominated by Russia should not be in a alliance that allows themselves to effectively protect themselves from threats like Russia?.
      - WastingMyTime89 3y ago
        > No one is NATO is a 'protectorate' this is absurd on the face of it. If you can’t defend yourself and have to rely on a foreign power to do so, you are de facto a protectorate like it or not. That’s the case of at least the Baltic states in Europe and could probably be extended to other former USSR republics in the east.
        _kbh_ 3y ago
        > If you can’t defend yourself and have to rely on a foreign power to do so, you are de facto a protectorate like it or not. That’s the case of at least the Baltic states in Europe and could probably be extended to other former USSR republics in the east. This implies that _anyone_ who receives any military aid is a protectorate which imply that states like Russia are a protectorate of Iran