They were very valid questions up until the Ukraine invasion revealed Russia to be the mustachioed villain we were always told they were. Now nobody questions the need for NATO. Good job, Mr. Putin, your "Recruiter of the Year" plaque is on the way.
Countries still need protecting from the remnants of the USSR's aggression, mainly Russian aggression.
If NATO didn't exist you can be sure that Russias ambition would not stop at countries like Ukraine.
Countries don’t need protecting. Countries should aim to protect themselves. The EU doesn’t need the US for its protection and should have invested in a proper army decades ago.
It’s obvious that the main benefit for the USA is that NATO dissuades the EU to actually be a power. That some countries in the east are happy to play lapdogs is a major issue.
It's simply not possible from some countries to protect themselves for other larger aggressive countries (such as Russia) that can both out spend them and have many more bodies to throw at the problem.
A collective defensive alliance in this cases makes sense as both a deterrence to any possible belligerents and as a practical measure if someone does try something.
I am not very keen on having American protectorates part of the EU personally (I think every EU extension from 2004 was a terrible and probably fatal mistake and have serious doubt about the 1995 ones) but I don’t think we are going to agree on that. I view it as one of the reason the current EU is so uninspiring.
Politically I despise the current EU. It has no ambition. Its social and economic policies are misguided and ineffective, its strategic vision sorely lacking, its ability to reform inexistant. It’s entirely possible that I’m projecting my utter disgust for my own country political life on the EU here however.
No one is NATO is a 'protectorate' this is absurd on the face of it.
Why do you think its bad that smaller countries in Europe that have historically been invaded and dominated by Russia should not be in a alliance that allows themselves to effectively protect themselves from threats like Russia?.
If you can’t defend yourself and have to rely on a foreign power to do so, you are de facto a protectorate like it or not. That’s the case of at least the Baltic states in Europe and could probably be extended to other former USSR republics in the east.
This implies that _anyone_ who receives any military aid is a protectorate which imply that states like Russia are a protectorate of Iran
I don’t mind the fairly honest debate and disagreement we are having. I understand your view on NATO even if I think it’s wrong and fail to acknowledge the actual effect the alliance has on its members. Still there is little point in going further if you are not interested in a modicum of intellectual honesty.
> I don’t mind the fairly honest debate and disagreement we are having but there is little point in going further if you are not interested in a modicum of intellectual honesty.
I feel like you are the one being intellectually dishonest. To claim someone is a protectorate because they enter into a defensive alliance for their defence is absurd and does not follow.
No one is entirely reliant on NATO for survival but theres plenty of armies that wouldn't survive an insane from Russia without the extra material.
NATO is first and foremost a military alliance setup to contain the western expansion of the USSR. It’s a strategic alliance. It’s defensive in as much as a military alliance can be.
What the US is using NATO for now that the USSR is no more and what is the EU getting out of it are actually very valid questions.