• @100_percent_a_bot
      link
      59 months ago

      All offensive operations were offensive, sure but the reason there were no defensive actions was that no one is stupid enough to mess with nato.

      The biggest benefit of nato though is countering nuclear proliferation and making it so that less countries develop and possess word ending doomsday devices. This means the chances of us nuking ourselves back to the stone age are somewhat smaller… So that’s something I guess

    • @lennybird
      link
      English
      3
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      These interventions, barring Yugoslavia, were largely spurred by United Nations votes, meaning NATO was acting as an arm of democratic votes. Yugoslavia was the exception of course, because both Russia and China would veto intervention of the atrocity taking place there.

      Afghanistan triggered Article 5, which is the entire point of the defensive alliance.

      NATO was literally losing support until the moment Russia invaded and made it relevant. NATO doesn’t make some mafia structure as you suggest; the institution itself isn’t even chaired by the US right now and the defense forces and military production are still largely in independent control of each member. This isn’t some warlord setup; it’s a voluntary club with a pretty explicit charter.

        • @lennybird
          link
          English
          3
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          In the end the whole thing was botched, but the US was attacked and said individuals must harbor behind some nation-state.

          In what world do you think a counterattack is not justified?

          As I explained: Not a mafia.