Top | Newest First | Oldest First
No, it just looks that way because it has actually been quite effective. Like a medicine that eliminates symptoms, but not the cause. But looking closely we can still see what function NATO serves, and it is actually much the same as before. The fall of the USSR saw several former soviet states join NATO, which they did as a safeguard of their independence from Russia. Many states in the former USSR were rather unwilling members, strong armed into it. But membership in NATO prevents this from happening, and give the West, particularly the USA, great political leverage in these regions, not just with the member states, but against Russia.
But is NATO really needed? For many it is. We saw Russia invade Georgia some years ago, and then later invade Ukraine. Non-NATO states are still very much as risk of Russian aggression. But why does the West care? Simply containing Russia is a good enough motive for many. The USSR posed a serious threat in the past, and preventing such an entity from being able to form again has its own value. The allies US and EU are in quite good positions globally, and have no desire to see an Eastern confederation come to challenge them in that regard. It might sound silly right now, but for decades that was exactly what was happening, and so taking it seriously is not unwarranted.
It is for similar reasons that some fear the rising status of China. And indeed, a similar mechanism is in place there. The US and allies of Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and Australia and New Zealand have China encircled, preventing major maritime expansion of China. Likewise, Russia to the north, and India to the west all form a fence around China, keeping it contained.
But both Russia and China have been, or are presently testing the boundaries of their fences. This is a situation that Trump will have to face. Many fear he may not understand or take the situation seriously. I'm sure his advisors will explain it to him though, but how he responds to it is something that is very uncertain. He seems quite fond of Russia, and antagonistic to China. Strategies like this are ever a balancing act though.
But is NATO really needed? For many it is. We saw Russia invade Georgia some years ago, and then later invade Ukraine. Non-NATO states are still very much as risk of Russian aggression. But why does the West care? Simply containing Russia is a good enough motive for many. The USSR posed a serious threat in the past, and preventing such an entity from being able to form again has its own value. The allies US and EU are in quite good positions globally, and have no desire to see an Eastern confederation come to challenge them in that regard. It might sound silly right now, but for decades that was exactly what was happening, and so taking it seriously is not unwarranted.
It is for similar reasons that some fear the rising status of China. And indeed, a similar mechanism is in place there. The US and allies of Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and Australia and New Zealand have China encircled, preventing major maritime expansion of China. Likewise, Russia to the north, and India to the west all form a fence around China, keeping it contained.
But both Russia and China have been, or are presently testing the boundaries of their fences. This is a situation that Trump will have to face. Many fear he may not understand or take the situation seriously. I'm sure his advisors will explain it to him though, but how he responds to it is something that is very uncertain. He seems quite fond of Russia, and antagonistic to China. Strategies like this are ever a balancing act though.
76starships · 46-50, M
Yes, I think it is obsolete based on its original purpose - to present a unified alliance in the face of the threat of the Soviet Union.
As a loose alliance of democratic states and an agreement to keep a set of standards allowing allied militaries to be interoperable with one another, it remains quite relevant.
So NATO should have slipped into quiet slumber. Using it is an inducement for former satellite states of the Soviet Union to embrace democratization and integration into the Western European economy in the 1990s was a good thing and should have been NATOs last hurrah. Looking further east to Ukraine and Georgia was a grave mistake and only served to irritate the Russians.
As a loose alliance of democratic states and an agreement to keep a set of standards allowing allied militaries to be interoperable with one another, it remains quite relevant.
So NATO should have slipped into quiet slumber. Using it is an inducement for former satellite states of the Soviet Union to embrace democratization and integration into the Western European economy in the 1990s was a good thing and should have been NATOs last hurrah. Looking further east to Ukraine and Georgia was a grave mistake and only served to irritate the Russians.
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
katielass · F
Well, they need to decide if they are relevant. The only time they've lived up to their purpose in IDK 50 years was after 9/11. If they aren't going to live up to their purpose, then they are nothing more than a club for certain people to live large. Not acceptable. We already have the in for that.
kutee · T
the rest of the world needs it
SW-User
Why do you ask?
Mrsmeta · 46-50, F
Curious to know other people's opinions