NATO was set up to protect us from the Soviet Union during the cold war. But the USSR is gone, and NATO is expanding. In fact it's become a disruptive, aggressive organization trying to infringe national sovereignty everywhere.

And i have to correct you on one tiny thing:
NATO isn't expanding.
NATO isn't conquering anything.
Countries are joining NATO out of their own will.

Have you ever wondered why the eastern european nations WANT to join NATO?
Why aren't they going back with Russia?
Or simply stay independent?
Could it be because Russia corrupted the Soviet Union in its later years and turned it from a multinational alliance into a tool of russian imperialism?
Could it be that those eastern european countries still remember that russian imperialism?

If Russia is so great, why did the western half of Ukraine start a revolution to prevent Ukraine from moving closer to Russia?

There was an early attempt to regain as much of Poland as possible. Lenin didn't want to lose that part of the empire.

Similarly in arranging the revolutions in places like Georgia, which had thinly disguised excuses for invasion and de facto annexation.


Before WWII Stalin had arranged for splitting Poland. He invaded and all but annexed the Baltics "because Hitler"--they simply failed to accommodate the USSR's interests in the area. After WWII the USSR insisted on territorial acquisition, including something that made life difficult for the Baltics after regaining their independence.

Similarly, at no point from the tsars through to Lenin and Stalin did the nationalist aspirations of Ukraine pass muster with the censors. The very idea was anathema to the USSR, and by 1942 the idea of opposing the Red Army, even if there was also opposition to the Germans, meant "fascism."

The USSR was always the Russian Empire, with all the same aspirations for dominance. In one case it was billed as "we want power"; in the other it was "we're on the right side of history, so we should naturally have power." From the point of view of the occupied independent-minded folk, not such a great difference. (Actually, the tsars' way was more tolerant--they required outward compliance, while the USSR demanded internal compliance, as well.)

"The most recent new members, Albania and Croatia, joined on 1 April 2009, prior to the 2009 Strasbourg–Kehl summit."

"In 2011, NATO officially recognized four aspiring members: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Macedonia, and Montenegro. Macedonia has been prevented from joining the alliance by Greece, one effect of the Macedonian naming dispute. Future expansion is currently a topic of debate in several countries outside the alliance, and countries like Sweden, Finland and Serbia have open political debate on the topic of membership, while in countries like Ukraine, support and opposition to membership is tied to ethnic and nationalist ideologies. The incorporation of countries formerly in the Soviet sphere of influence has been a cause of increased tension between NATO countries and Russia."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO

Oh and in case you just ridicule a Wikipedia link...I'll give you NATO's own for good measure:

The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia¹ has been assured that it will be invited to become a member as soon as a mutually acceptable solution to the issue over the country’s name has been reached with Greece.

Bosnia and Herzegovina was invited to join the Membership Action Plan (MAP) in April 2010 but its participation is pending the resolution of a key issue concerning immovable defence property.

At the 2008 Bucharest Summit, the Allies agreed that Georgia and Ukraine will become members of NATO in future (since 2010, Ukraine has not been formally pursuing membership).

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_49212.htm

Looks like NATO is expanding...or in this case, the term is "enlarging"...but that's just semantics.

I explicitly said that NATO isn't expanding in the sense of conquering territory or forcing people to join.

Is it NATO's fault that countries ask to be considered for a membership???

I explicitly said that NATO isn't expanding in the sense of conquering territory or forcing people to join.

And i have to correct you on one tiny thing:
NATO isn't expanding.
NATO isn't conquering anything.

You made two specific different statements, I did not address the last, but the former. And for that manner, I haven't seen anyone on DU imply that NATO was running amok in Europe conquering nations; You're creating a false argument in order to elevate your false one that NATO isn't expanding.

You are also trying to imply that Russia is such an aggressor that the nations are cowering and weak all around it, so they are running to NATO for help to dissuade Russia from conquering them. Which is the narrative, and a false one, that the media, particularly right wing media portrays. And one you are repeating.

The last European war of aggression instigated by Russia to capture and hold territory was World War 2 when it briefly allied with Germany (in the hopes Germany, would cease expanding eastward..funny how they continue to have that fear). And that was largely to regain the territory they lost in World War 1.

In the Georgia war, it was actually Georgia itself who initiated it. Russia could have easily taken control, they didn't.

In Ukraine, last I checked, Kiev still flies the Ukrainian flag. Granted Russia is assisting in the insurgency there, but I'll get to that in a moment.

Belarus hinted at reunification awhile back, Putin turned it down.

Russia was also becoming an important trading partner in Europe, enriching both. But Moscow repeatedly stated that NATO expansion was worrisome and Georgia and Ukraine were red lines. And lets face it, a military alliance (that used to be against you, and may still have the perception, still is) at your doorstep, is something you have to keep an eye on and sabotage when possible. If an anti-US military alliance was developing in South and Central America, you get bet the farm Washington will stop it at all costs (and one could even argue, that it did when many of the governments became leftists and the CIA overthrew them and installed right wing dictators such as Pinochet)

So by keeping Georgia and Ukraine in a constant state of territorial flux, you deny them entry into NATO. And in Georgia, that strategy may not be needed for too much longer, as the government there is slowly moving towards friendly relations with Moscow.

Oh and lets not forget, NATO isn't just a military alliance. After joining, it often comes with economic incentives, more access to markets, etc. Granted it isn't spelled out, but time and time again, you join, then get to join some sort of European economic trade union.

Putin at the early offset of his Presidency asked to join NATO...and was denied. A denial that appears to have resulted in him hammering down on rights, rebuilding a military and allying with one of the largest economic partners in Asia.

In some of the nations, such as Slovenia, people protested joining NATO...so please don't paint a picture of all the nations as being all honky dory and ready to join.

But your statement "NATO isn't expanding", is false.

1. "In the Georgia war, it was actually Georgia itself who initiated it. Russia could have easily taken control, they didn't."
Am I mistaken or are russian troops in georgian territory to meddle with an internal political conflict of Georgia?
And Russia HAS taken control: Can Georgia do what it wants or does Russia now have veto-power over political decisions of Georgia?

2. "Georgia and Ukraine were red lines".
That's a geopolitical strategic doctrine from the soviet days: Russia does not want to border on another nation it cannot control. That's why they prefer Eastern Ukraine to become a sovereign nation instead of taking it over: Russia would border on a country, Ukraine, that is not under Russia's control. Similar with Georgia. Conquering Georgia would have meant expanding Russia's border to possibly hostile other nations.
The strategy goes back to the napoleonic wars and WWII: Russia's wartime-defence-strategy is its ability to retreat, to cease land, to leave the enemy with vast stretches of landscape he now has to cross and to secure.
In WWII, Russia retreated before the german army. The Germans made huge gains in summer 1943, but in winter 1943/44 they couldn't move, in summer 1944 they were again stuck in the vast muddy landscape of Russia and made insignificant gains, and then came winter 1944/45 and they were halted again. And Stalin had used this time to prepare a military defence.
Russia's primary defence is the vastness of its territory. And that mirrors in its geopolitical thinking to always surround itself with a buffer-zone of vassals.
(Ukraine is a complicated example, because it's not only of strategic but also of great cultural and symbolic value to Russia: Ukraine, Belarus and Russia are the heartlands of russian culture. Kiev is an important historic and cultural symbol for Russia. That's another reason why Ukraine switching political affiliations hurts Russia so much. Imagine the New-England-states of the US joining Canada...)

3. Putin wanted Russia to join Nato???
That sounds... weird. Can I have a link?

My mistake, it was Yeltsin....but the question was posed to Putin later. Brain Fart.

http://www.latimes.com/la-oe-meier20-2008aug20-story.html

1. Of course Russia is in Georgia to meddle...to make sure they don't join NATO. If Georgia made a treaty with Russia to give more autonomy two the separatist provinces along with being "neutral" and not join NATO, there wouldn't be any issues. But "W" couldn't have that and wanted influence on any strategic energy pipelines. If it wasn't for that, no one would pay attention to them.

2. We can debate Ukraine ad-nauseum....even debate if it should have been a country and if the Tartar's actually deserve a nation more than them (obviously will never happen).

But there is no denying, Russia see's NATO expansion as a hostile fact. Come on, they thought we were about to attack during Able Archer. There should have been a point where someone said, maybe we should think this through more.

And when you add that there is a debate that NATO is now too large and within itself has nations that are festering old wounds with each other....the greatest threat to NATO, maybe itself eventually.

Though, as a cartoon, it might be too sophisticated for the average Trump disciple to follow.

my wife drew some flak from church members when we were dating.
she should stay with in the church and only see similar christians for any relationship
it did not have as much influence because she was a rather new member there.

but i kept hearing shit about being unevenly yoked......or some such

stupid me i kept thinking it had something to do with eggs.....

Examine the propaganda in the US

Good one

Which is why I doubt that other poster would respond

Their entire world view is based around the idea that Obama and Bush created all evil in the world.

Everything that was bad about the US was George W. Bush's fault. Not coincidence, not ignorance or laziness, not tradition grown from history. No, everything bad could be traced back to GWB.


And it always vexes me when those ill-informed rebel-wannabes project their anger over the US' problems onto the EU. The EU is an influential political organisation, so it MUST be corrupt and power-hungry.

70 years of Communism have done great damage to the minds. Apparently, half the population thinks Stalin was a 'great' man. So by comparison, Putin is great. Less toxic.