| There isn't some separate NATO army that does things at the behest of its members. Sometimes the members of NATO decide to do things with their militaries, alone or together. They have clubbed together on some equipment standards too. But the existence or not of NATO as a defensive alliance wouldn't have prevented those countries from intervening in those situations. Turkey could have provided those bases for the US to use in Syria NATO or not. Indeed, they didn't just provide them because they're NATO, the US still had to make an agreement. I think the Syrian Kurds were pretty keen on the US being there, and the Kosovo Albanians in Yugoslavia. If I recall that one correctly, Russia also sent a peacekeeping force at the same time. > Quite a lot of people in Eurasia and Africa see NATO as a threat Sure, but that doesn't mean they should. They can see the US as a threat, or an actor such as France. But the Polish army is unlikely to be bullying them around. It's also impossible to please. When Western countries didn't step in to conflicts and genocide they're criticized, when they do they're criticized. Should they have just let the Serbs do whatever in Kosovo? > NATO as a beloved and welcomed knight in shining armor, and realize that it's just a tool of war. I've never seen it that way. It's a tool of war and tools of war are also tools of defense. My country is not a NATO member. |