I like the framing that NATO is a military. It is marching towards Russia, just like the Third Reich, just like Napoleon. The difference this time is that NATO isn’t fighting each country it marches through. It “negotiates” with them, tells them if they don’t let NATO in then Russia will get them, tells them they have to fund it.
Like any good shake down, NATO occasionally launches wars of aggression to make these “negotiations” easier because of the “implication”. Sometimes when a target country isn’t amenable, the country suddenly finds a right-wing uprising and coup on its doorstep and then suddenly the country becomes more amenable to NATO. Sometimes, the right-wingers are funded and they win elections without the need for a coup and they support NATO.
But from a strategic perspective, there is no difference in threat to Russia whether the military marching across Europe towards the Ukrainian border is Napoleonic cavalry, Third Reich armor, or NATO nukes.
I like the framing that NATO is a military. It is marching towards Russia, just like the Third Reich, just like Napoleon. The difference this time is that NATO isn’t fighting each country it marches through. It “negotiates” with them, tells them if they don’t let NATO in then Russia will get them, tells them they have to fund it.
Like any good shake down, NATO occasionally launches wars of aggression to make these “negotiations” easier because of the “implication”. Sometimes when a target country isn’t amenable, the country suddenly finds a right-wing uprising and coup on its doorstep and then suddenly the country becomes more amenable to NATO. Sometimes, the right-wingers are funded and they win elections without the need for a coup and they support NATO.
But from a strategic perspective, there is no difference in threat to Russia whether the military marching across Europe towards the Ukrainian border is Napoleonic cavalry, Third Reich armor, or NATO nukes.