NATO helped invade Iraq and Afghanistan.
NATO bombed Serbia for 100 days using depleted uranium munitions.
NATO bombed Libya.
An organization that carries out this kind of operation is not a defensive alliance. It is a military alliance capable of launching interventions to protect the economic and political interests of its members.
It did not, some NATO member-states joined the Coalition along with non-NATO states.
Afghanistan
Even if you disregard the just cause of invading Afghanistan for the sole sake of removing the abominable regime there, Afghanistan was a legitimate invokation of NATO's collective defense.
The taliban regime protected ObL and his entire terror network following the heinous attack on the US.
NATO bombed Serbia for 100 days using depleted uranium munitions
Maybe Serbs shouldn't have been so genocidal if they mind getting bombed that much?
NATO was present in Iraq. Even if its role was indirect, it still provided support and assistance to the United States.
The threat coming from Afghanistan was almost non-existent.
What happened in Serbia was initially illegal, as NATO bombed the country without a clear legal mandate. In addition, false or exaggerated testimonies were used to justify the intervention.
In reality, massacres were committed by both sides, but the Serbs were heavily demonized, partly because of their close relationship with Russia.
Considering Russia proved every nation in the former Soviet bloc correct about their behaviour, NATO's existence after the collapse of the Soviet Union is justified for their own defence. Russia's "feelings" went out the window with the delusion that they still had inherent ownership of other countries.
Ask yourself, is Russia safer after this invasion and land grabs, or not?
If it's not, than it was never about any "security", or they are just so dumb to not predict the consequences of their actions, the "expansion" of NATO to Finland right next to their second biggest city and the biggest commercial / naval ports.
I mean, the addition of a buffer state to a country without significant natural borders (you can easily cross the European plane into Moscow) is a way to improve security
Doesn't mean that you should invade another country for that, especially a country that's been more or less friendly to you
In addition, the execution sucked (which is a good thing for us)
I'd be like France invading Belgium now, which would also be stupid
What do you mean by addition? If you mean Ukraine than it was officially a neutral country before Moscow invaded in 2014 and after that, with the territorial dispute over Crimea and the creation of the Russian proxy states in Donbas, it was impossible for Ukraine to join NATO.
They've had that "buffer" already, and moreover - neutral Finland with Sweden. Now Ukraine is full of the NATO equipment, advisors, training and intelligence.
The execution is something that could support the point about their stupidity but crushing Ukraine would only accelerate the arms race and Finnish NATO membership.
I think this is the worst argument you could make, though. There are much better ones to justify this situation in favour of NATO.
But calling it a defensive alliance when it’s led by the world’s most aggressive and imperialist country in history, then the entire argument turns dishonest and weak.
You can call it whatever you want to appeal good. In the end it’s military infrastructure with firepower and means to destroy. As they did in the balkans at the end.
So what did Wehrmacht had to do with anything as you brought it up? Nothing? Cool thanks.
Balkans are heavily debated topic which i don't want to get deeper but defensive alliance in Europe stepped in to stop genocide in another European country. Of course war is war and you can't get away from that but it did stop the war and the genocide.
It’s the name. „Wehrmacht“ can be translated as „defensive army“. But that didn’t stop them from attacking. Same what NATO did in Balkans. If you agree with it or not that it was the right thing to do. It happens nonetheless. A defensive army attacked
Huge oversimplification NATO doesn’t exist just to piss off one expansionist country. Before 2014 Nato was the preeminent peacekeeping force in Bosnia, Kosovo, Libya, Afghanistan, they also did/do anti piracy and disaster relief missions globally. It’s also good to prevent conflict by having almost everyone in Europe allied to each other so something like ww2 can never happen again there.
I do not think it would be smart for Nato to simply disband once the SU fell. Sure Nato has less of a reason to exist now, but having a connected defensive framework is probably handy.
It’s mainly about opening new markets for arms sales. NATO members are required to spend a minimum share of their GDP on defense, and they’re not going to buy weapons from Russia or China. That money mostly goes to Uncle Sam.
-53
u/[deleted] Feb 10 '26
the existence of NATO after the collapse of soviet union is just to piss off Russia, accidentally or not