No, it's not. It's a military alliance to produce an active duty transnational nuclear military without accountability to an electorate. This military alliance has been used aggressively and unprovoked multiple times, all to advance US strategic aims.

you mean, war-winning allies?

No, I mean enemies. Both historical and contemporary. Just because they were fighting the same enemy doesn't mean that they were real allies, as proven by the fact that as soon as the war ended, all of the North Atlantic aligned against the USSR, and most of them were totally cool with the Third Reich's plan to attack the USSR until they realized what it would cost them.

even if so, NATO’s power against Russia extends only as far as to prevent Russia from attacking/annexing sovereign nations who requested themselves to join the organization.

No, it does not. You clearly don't understand anything about nuclear strategy. NATO's primary strategic role is deploying nuclear first strike capabilities in Europe under a single coordinated strategic plan.

Easy-enough for Russia to ignore, isn’t it? Unless Russia wants to invade sovereign nations, but that makes them the baddie, so this is a non-sequitur, right?

This is just swallowing propaganda whole. What you believe about NATO is what NATO propaganda says about itself. It's simply not true. This is the source of your confusion.

[–] u_tamtam@programming.dev -1 points 1 year ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia - 7 instances of depleted uranium in that article alone.

So, you were being hyperbolic. But I am with you on that, I do not condone the use of depleted uranium, by NATO or anyone (even though it is not banned).

Yes, NATO is a defence treaty.

No, it’s not. It’s a military alliance to produce an active duty transnational nuclear military without accountability to an electorate. This military alliance has been used aggressively and unprovoked multiple times, all to advance US strategic aims.

I cannot find any NATO engagement that isn't instructed by a UN Security Council resolution or the application of Article 5 (attack on one member), which happened exactly once (following the 11 September attacks). NATO had no case for engaging in Irak and couldn't force its members to get involved, even with all the weight (and BS) of the USA pushing for it. I think you were a bit oversold the image of a bunch of friends with guns using the world as their range practice.

No, it does not. You clearly don’t understand anything about nuclear strategy. NATO’s primary strategic role is deploying nuclear first strike capabilities in Europe under a single coordinated strategic plan.

Can you explain to me what you find revolting here? Nuclear deterrence (mutually-assured destruction) has been a core doctrine of every nuclear-capable nation.

Easy-enough for Russia to ignore, isn’t it? Unless Russia wants to invade sovereign nations, but that makes them the baddie, so this is a non-sequitur, right?

This is just swallowing propaganda whole. What you believe about NATO is what NATO propaganda says about itself. It’s simply not true. This is the source of your confusion.

I must admit that I don't know everything, but you are not helping me find where my logic is flawed. The list of ex-soviet countries who joined NATO, the recent engagements in Chechnya, Tajikistan, Dagestan and Georgia, the "special military operation in Ukraine", should they not be making an unequivocal argument that Russian military expansionism is very real and that countries bordering Russia are seeking protection from Russia?