Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by WastingMyTime89 1084 days ago
This is both Russia invading its neighbour and a proxy war between NATO and Russia. It doesn’t have to be one of the other. NATO and its allies are directly propping up Ukraine which would have collapsed without them and they do that mostly to curtail Russia’s ambitions which is fine.

NATO is first and foremost a military alliance setup to contain the western expansion of the USSR. It’s a strategic alliance. It’s defensive in as much as a military alliance can be.

What the US is using NATO for now that the USSR is no more and what is the EU getting out of it are actually very valid questions.
2 comments
CamperBob2 1084 days ago
What the US is using NATO for now that the USSR is no more and what is the EU getting out of it are actually very valid questions.

They were very valid questions up until the Ukraine invasion revealed Russia to be the mustachioed villain we were always told they were. Now nobody questions the need for NATO. Good job, Mr. Putin, your "Recruiter of the Year" plaque is on the way.

link
_kbh_ 1084 days ago
> What the US is using NATO for now that the USSR is no more and what is the EU getting out of it are actually very valid questions.

Countries still need protecting from the remnants of the USSR's aggression, mainly Russian aggression.

If NATO didn't exist you can be sure that Russias ambition would not stop at countries like Ukraine.

link
WastingMyTime89 1083 days ago
> Countries still need protecting

Countries don’t need protecting. Countries should aim to protect themselves. The EU doesn’t need the US for its protection and should have invested in a proper army decades ago.

It’s obvious that the main benefit for the USA is that NATO dissuades the EU to actually be a power. That some countries in the east are happy to play lapdogs is a major issue.

link
_kbh_ 1083 days ago
> Countries don’t need protecting. Countries should aim to protect themselves. The EU doesn’t need the US for its protection and should have invested in a proper army decades ago.

It's simply not possible from some countries to protect themselves for other larger aggressive countries (such as Russia) that can both out spend them and have many more bodies to throw at the problem.

A collective defensive alliance in this cases makes sense as both a deterrence to any possible belligerents and as a practical measure if someone does try something.

link