the Alliance’s creation was part of a broader effort to serve three purposes: deterring Soviet expansionism, forbidding the revival of nationalist militarism in Europe through a strong North American presence on the continent, and encouraging European political integration.
1) The USSR is long gone. 2) The US routinely complains about Europe not contributing enough to its military obligations. 3) Europe is politically integrated.
Given that there is evidence that NATO's original mission has already been fulfilled, what official purpose does NATO serve now, and how does NATO expansionism into eastern Europe fulfill this purpose?
Lol no worries. You have a history of writing good questions so I was second guessing myself and thinking I misunderstood something due to lack of coffee.
Sure thing and thanks for trying. The big issue is that the question is both a fact-check, which we don't do, and subjective opinion as what is "true" in politics often depends on who is asked.
Hey there, this is an interesting question but your first source sort of answers your question, stating
NATO endured because while the Soviet Union was no more, the Alliance’s two other original if unspoken mandates still held: to deter the rise of militant nationalism and to provide the foundation of collective security that would encourage democratisation and political integration in Europe. The definition of “Europe” had merely expanded eastward.
and the last two paragraphs explicitly discuss how NATO's built in flexibility has allowed it to adapt to modern challenges : does this not answer your question? If not, mind clarifying or reworking the question?
Hey there, this is an interesting question but your first source sort of answers your question, stating
NATO endured because while the Soviet Union was no more, the Alliance’s two other original if unspoken mandates still held: to deter the rise of militant nationalism and to provide the foundation of collective security that would encourage democratisation and political integration in Europe. The definition of “Europe” had merely expanded eastward.
and the last two paragraphs explicitly discuss how NATO's built in flexibility has allowed it to adapt to modern challenges : does this not answer your question? If not, mind clarifying or reworking the question?
Hello there. I'm a mod in /r/NeutralPolitics.
We appreciate your participation in the sub, but we did not approve this submission, because it doesn't conform to our submission rules.
Specifically, rules A, C and D. This is more of a legal question versus a political question.
Thanks for understanding.
Hello there. I'm a mod in /r/NeutralPolitics.
We appreciate your participation in the sub, but we did not approve this submission, because it doesn't conform to our submission rules.
Specifically, rules A, C and D. This is more of a legal question versus a political question.
Thanks for understanding.
Many Western companies have existing contracts with either the Russian government or Russian businesses. Aside from these companies being afraid of losing money; can they legally get out of these contracts?
Many Western companies have existing contracts with either the Russian government or Russian businesses. Aside from these companies being afraid of losing money; can they legally get out of these contracts?
Hello there. I'm a mod in /r/NeutralPolitics.
We appreciate your participation in the sub, but we did not approve this submission, because it doesn't conform to our submission rules.
Specifically, rules A, B and D.
Thanks for understanding.
Hello there. I'm a mod in /r/NeutralPolitics.
We appreciate your participation in the sub, but we did not approve this submission, because it doesn't conform to our submission rules.
Specifically, rules A, B and D.
Thanks for understanding.
Taking a step back and taking an objective look on this whole debacle, i have to wonder if atleast some of Russias claims are legitimate?
I am not well-versed in global politics, but from my limited history knowledge i do recall that the nations surrounding Russia where made as a bufferzone. And if Ukraine where to join NATO woudnt that give Russia the "justification"(casus beli?) for thier actions?
Taking a step back and taking an objective look on this whole debacle, i have to wonder if atleast some of Russias claims are legitimate?
I am not well-versed in global politics, but from my limited history knowledge i do recall that the nations surrounding Russia where made as a bufferzone. And if Ukraine where to join NATO woudnt that give Russia the "justification"(casus beli?) for thier actions?
NATO's Article 5 is explicitly a member state's right to collective defence. It does not offer security guarantees in cases where a NATO member state was the first to start a war.
I suppose one could argue that Ukrainian NATO membership would be inherently threatening to Russia, as there is no easy way to distinguish defensive vs offensive military installations, and potentially having NATO missile silos so close to Moscow might upset the balance of power so as to interfere with the current mutually assured destruction nuclear policies of Moscow and Washington. Arguably, MAD has been one of the main reasons the Cold War remained cold. However, NATO has expressed an understanding of Moscow's security concerns and willingness to negotiate about missile deployments.
In any case, Ukraine was not anywhere close to joining NATO. So we can clearly see that Putin's full-scale invasion is an act of wanton aggression.
SOLLOH is a Digital Marketing Agency, performing Local SEO Services and Branding Identity. The best SEO Company in Austin, TX!
the Alliance’s creation was part of a broader effort to serve three purposes: deterring Soviet expansionism, forbidding the revival of nationalist militarism in Europe through a strong North American presence on the continent, and encouraging European political integration.
1) The USSR is long gone. 2) The US routinely complains about Europe not contributing enough to its military obligations. 3) Europe is politically integrated.
Given that there is evidence that NATO's original mission has already been fulfilled, what purpose does NATO serve now, and how does NATO expansionism into eastern Europe fulfill this purpose?
NATO's Article 5 is explicitly a member state's right to collective defence. It does not offer security guarantees in cases where a NATO member state was the first to start a war.
I suppose one could argue that Ukrainian NATO membership would be inherently threatening to Russia, as there is no easy way to distinguish defensive vs offensive military installations, and potentially having NATO missile silos so close to Moscow might upset the balance of power so as to interfere with the current mutually assured destruction nuclear policies of Moscow and Washington. Arguably, MAD has been one of the main reasons the Cold War remained cold. However, NATO has expressed an understanding of Moscow's security concerns and willingness to negotiate about missile deployments.
In any case, Ukraine was not anywhere close to joining NATO. So we can clearly see that Putin's full-scale invasion is an act of wanton aggression.