3 ms·

Europe suffered no consequences as a result of disagreeing with the US over the Iraq War. It suffered no consequences as a result of disagreeing with the US (an

Europe suffered no consequences as a result of disagreeing with the US over the Iraq War. It suffered no consequences as a result of disagreeing with the US (and other European country's) concerns over Russian imperialism. It continues to suffer no consequences as a result of disagreeing with the US over China. Turkey suffers no consequences of its considerable disagreement from US foreign policy, despite reaching the point that it is objecting to new entries to the coalition for essentially spurious reasons. The US does maintain a hegemony, but NATO isn't a vehicle of political compulsion, especially when you compare to the Warsaw Pact, which very much was. Recall that the Warsaw Pact's sole military operation was to invade a country that wanted out, and the Warsaw Pact itself fell apart pretty much the moment the USSR indicated it wouldn't invade countries that wanted out anymore.

pphysch 3y ago
> Europe suffered no consequences as a result of disagreeing with the US over the Iraq War. They also didn't prevent it, so I'm not sure what your point is here: Washington got their way. It was Europe that was burdened with millions of refugees created by Washington's unprovoked invasion of Iraq (then Libya, then Syria). > It suffered no consequences as a result of disagreeing with the US (and other European country's) concerns over Russian imperialism. This doesn't make any sense. Europe's economy is in dire straits, and Washington continues to get exactly what it wants. > It continues to suffer no consequences as a result of disagreeing with the US over China. Simply not true. One example from this week: https://www.ft.com/content/095e76a1-6ffd-4962-99e6-33268eebcda9 https://www.ft.com/content/095e76a1-6ffd-4962-99e6-33268eebc... > Turkey suffers no consequences of its considerable disagreement from US foreign policy Huh? Erdoğan blames the US for being behind the failed Gulenist coup, and Türkiye continues to straddle the line between West and East.
- jcranmer 3y ago
  > It was Europe that was burdened with millions of refugees created by Washington's unprovoked invasion of Iraq (then Libya, then Syria). You are aware that intervention in Libya was driven by France and UK far more than the US, right? In fact, part of the goal of the intervention in Libya was to demonstrate that Europe didn't need to rely on the US to tackle security concerns in its immediate backward--even if that demonstration was a failure.
  - pphysch 3y ago
    Yes, I am aware of that, and that it doesn't affect my argument. Washington was still a huge fan of and participant in that brutal unprovoked invasion that saw slave markets return to Libya. Washington did lead the unprovoked illegal invasions of Iraq and Syria, which had more of an impact on the refugee crisis. So again: where are the examples of coalition members getting their way in spite of Washington's interests?
hackandthink 3y ago
I agree that NATO is not the vehicle for US world domination. NATO is hard to understand. It is a complicated organization without a clear course and it is especially not a pure defense alliance (Afghanistan, Kosovo, Ukraine). Some members try to push their own questionable agenda (NATO expansion to asia) and the organization has a life of its own (mission creep). NATO's success also exacerbates the security dilemma, which its own self-righteousness cannot see. In my opinion, NATO should limit itself to an actual pure defensive alliance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_dilemma
- _kbh_ 3y ago
  > NATO is hard to understand. It is a complicated organization without a clear course and it is especially not a pure defense alliance (Afghanistan, Kosovo, Ukraine). Is NATO actually in Ukraine attacking Russia, or is NATO helping Ukraine defend itself from Russia. I think it’s entirely reasonable for a defensive alliance to arm a country to defend itself from an invader. It’s literally the point of NATO, to counter Russian aggression.

pphysch 3y ago

> Europe suffered no consequences as a result of disagreeing with the US over the Iraq War. They also didn't prevent it, so I'm not sure what your point is here: Washington got their way. It was Europe that was burdened with millions of refugees created by Washington's unprovoked invasion of Iraq (then Libya, then Syria). > It suffered no consequences as a result of disagreeing with the US (and other European country's) concerns over Russian imperialism. This doesn't make any sense. Europe's economy is in dire straits, and Washington continues to get exactly what it wants. > It continues to suffer no consequences as a result of disagreeing with the US over China. Simply not true. One example from this week: https://www.ft.com/content/095e76a1-6ffd-4962-99e6-33268eebcda9 https://www.ft.com/content/095e76a1-6ffd-4962-99e6-33268eebc... > Turkey suffers no consequences of its considerable disagreement from US foreign policy Huh? Erdoğan blames the US for being behind the failed Gulenist coup, and Türkiye continues to straddle the line between West and East.

jcranmer 3y ago
> It was Europe that was burdened with millions of refugees created by Washington's unprovoked invasion of Iraq (then Libya, then Syria). You are aware that intervention in Libya was driven by France and UK far more than the US, right? In fact, part of the goal of the intervention in Libya was to demonstrate that Europe didn't need to rely on the US to tackle security concerns in its immediate backward--even if that demonstration was a failure.
- pphysch 3y ago
  Yes, I am aware of that, and that it doesn't affect my argument. Washington was still a huge fan of and participant in that brutal unprovoked invasion that saw slave markets return to Libya. Washington did lead the unprovoked illegal invasions of Iraq and Syria, which had more of an impact on the refugee crisis. So again: where are the examples of coalition members getting their way in spite of Washington's interests?

hackandthink 3y ago

I agree that NATO is not the vehicle for US world domination. NATO is hard to understand. It is a complicated organization without a clear course and it is especially not a pure defense alliance (Afghanistan, Kosovo, Ukraine). Some members try to push their own questionable agenda (NATO expansion to asia) and the organization has a life of its own (mission creep). NATO's success also exacerbates the security dilemma, which its own self-righteousness cannot see. In my opinion, NATO should limit itself to an actual pure defensive alliance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_dilemma

_kbh_ 3y ago
> NATO is hard to understand. It is a complicated organization without a clear course and it is especially not a pure defense alliance (Afghanistan, Kosovo, Ukraine). Is NATO actually in Ukraine attacking Russia, or is NATO helping Ukraine defend itself from Russia. I think it’s entirely reasonable for a defensive alliance to arm a country to defend itself from an invader. It’s literally the point of NATO, to counter Russian aggression.