2 ms·

I agree it is a US-centric take, but I disagree that the expansion of NATO is not principally about expanding American power. John Bolton, in 1994, said about

I agree it is a US-centric take, but I disagree that the expansion of NATO is not principally about expanding American power. John Bolton, in 1994, said about the UN: “There is no such thing as the United Nations. There is an international community that occasionally can be led by the only real power left in the world and that is the United States when it suits our interest and we can get others to go along.'[1] I think you could replace the UN with NATO and wouldn't lose much nuance. John Bolton, like Victoria Nuland and her husband Robert Kagan, have been determining foreign policy in American administrations for the last thirty years, from the collapse of the USSR to its resurgence as Putin's revanchist state. The published attitudes of Nuland, Kagan, and Bolton (not including hot mic moments like Nuland's "fuck the EU" tape) towards the EU, the UN, and NATO are almost, if not categorically hostile when it comes at the expense of American hegemony. It's also why the ICC has no real power in the West. As far as Sweden and Finland go, yes, their flight into NATO's arms was catalyzed by Russia's invasion of Ukraine, yes, but this is also perfectly suited to the longterm geopolitical aims of the United States, whether it happened immediately, as it did, or if they were included in a future wave of NATO members. That's the nature of salami slicing tactics. You don't need to move fast, as your opponent doesn't have the capacity to ever stop you. >Neither had any immediate plans to join before the war, but the bitter truth is that no neighbour of Russia is safe without an alliance providing a decisive military superiority. I agree entirely! That bitter truth has been known to conservatives in the United States since 1945 and has been routinely mocked by unaligned Europeans and urbane liberals in the United States for decades, culminating in the peak irony in 2012 of Barack Obama making fun of Mitt Romney's claim that Russia was the biggest geopolitical threat to America's interest.[2] [1] https://youtube.com/watch?v=w0y2gYoqOnA https://youtube.com/watch?v=w0y2gYoqOnA [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0IWe11RWOM&t=8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0IWe11RWOM&t=8

distances 2y ago
All right, I don't dispute that a larger NATO is in US geopolitical interests. I just disagree with the framing that NATO is expanding vs. countries independently seeking to join. It may sound like a minor difference, but that plays to the Russian narrative of US violating their sphere of influence. In this imperialistic worldview smaller countries have no agency and are just pawns of larger powers. This is at the core of the current war too -- Russia desperately trying to prevent Ukraine from following the path of westward alignment that it has independently chosen.

distances 2y ago

All right, I don't dispute that a larger NATO is in US geopolitical interests. I just disagree with the framing that NATO is expanding vs. countries independently seeking to join. It may sound like a minor difference, but that plays to the Russian narrative of US violating their sphere of influence. In this imperialistic worldview smaller countries have no agency and are just pawns of larger powers. This is at the core of the current war too -- Russia desperately trying to prevent Ukraine from following the path of westward alignment that it has independently chosen.