Originally Posted by
Cypress
The Baltic countries are "border" states every bit as much as Georgia, and they are of more strategic value that Georgia.
I do not think Putin would invade the Baltics, but Putin will not be around forever. There is a strong and pervasive righwing nationalist constituency within Russia, and they are very much akin to righting Trump supporters -- aka, nationalists, proto-fascist, war mongers, with strong affinity for Russian hegemony in its sphere of influence. The unequivocal guarantees of an anonymous message board poster that the Lithuanians have nothing to fear - now or ever - simply can be dismissed as the unsubstantiated assertions of the uninformed.
Georgia is a culturally and historically distinct people, and your attempt to portray them as quasi-subjects of the Kremlin does not pass the laugh text.
Ukraine can arguably be said to culturally, linguistically, and historically an East Slavic variant of the Russian republic, bearing common roots in the Rus Varangians ancestors. Does that give Russia the right to invade the sovereign territory of Ukraine, as you suggest? Nope. Their invasion of Crimea was just as illegal and unethical as our invasion of Iraq.
I think the eastward NATO expansion is open to debate, and I do not necessarily think we have to admit all former republics of the Soviet Union or Warsaw Pact. But I also do not believe in telling other countries what to do. NATO is the most successful and effective military alliance in human history, and it is perfectly understandable why duly elected governments of democratic nations would want to join. That said, we need to be very deliberative in balancing Polish motives, Ukrainian motives, Estonian motives against our interests and the broader interests of NATO. We cannot have countries who just want us to defend their interests. They have to be willing to contribute to the NATO's missions, not only security, but peacekeeping and humanitarian. The amount of deliberation and debate that goes into those kinds of decisions simply cannot be trusted to a pro-Kremlin message board poster.
There is also something to be said for collective security. Without NATO, there well may be 40 or 50 nuclear states on the planet - exponentially increasing the risk of nuclear proliferation or confrontation. The fact that the U.S. nuclear arsenal, in conjunction with the French and British nuke forces, are used for the collective security of the world's liberal democratic nations had had more than a minor impact in preventing nuclear proliferation at the nation-state scale.
The slogan about NATO being a cold war relict is a slogan, a talking point that has no basis in reality. Worth remembering is that NATO provided the United States assistance after 9/11 and after hurricane Katrina
On balance, NATO has been a stabilizing force for the world, and has served North American and western European interests in immeasurable ways. The fact that nations across Europe have always scrambled, begged, and advocated for membership is a crystal clear testament to the fact that NATO is the most successful political and military alliance in all of human history.
Bookmarks