DeezerShoove » 4 minutes ago » wrote: ↑
I think it was a reaction to fears after WWII and those fears were displaced with a cold war detent.
Which was a "permanent" madness on both sides.
NATO became useful in that cold war and kept it semi-relevant as a so-called defensive/deterrent org.
Expansion of that org. wasn't supposed to be in the cards but it came anyway.
When I asked its purpose, I asked in the present tense. This is not to agree with your history, but to say that the history isn not worth arguing about in the present. In MY view of NATO's history, it was always intended to make vassals of Europe's nations.
DeezerShoove » 4 minutes ago » wrote: ↑
So, Russia got whipsawed by China on one side and Nato on the other while the Soviet structure grew thin.
Whatever they claimed at the start of NATO has long been displaced.
Are they protecting democracy? Hardly. Seems like they want to be big enough to be invincible, though.
The more countries they can claim as members,
the more opportunities they can claim they got their noses bent out of shape.
When Peru joins I'm going to start to wonder...
Every nation that joins NATO must immediately gear up, as a condition of membership, to NATO's military standards.
That means buying a ton of weapons from America's MIC. Which is owned by blackrock.
Follow the money.
"Because I SAY I am" is fallacy, not science
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not your friend
An opinion you won't defend is not yours. It's someone else's.
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe.
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge.
Only religions declare heresy; only lies require protection.
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?