• Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .

[RD] Is NATO a threat to Russia? If so, how?


burning out his fuse out here alone
Aug 30, 2001
Civilization II
My standpoint is a likely biased, one that does not see how NATO presents a credible threat to Russia in the military sense—no one I know of would advocate an invasion of Russia, not only from the threat of nuclear weapons, but just: what is the point? I don’t see it in our Western interests to destroy a Russia that is not actively threatening (as in, actually starting the wars they fear will be started)

It’s a view that strikes me as wholly illogical.

I open this thread to get some discussion of these viewpoints independent of the war situation.
the army to do the invasion is being bled white .
It's hard to imagine things from their perspective but I can try...

I think I believe Russia sees NATO as something worthwhile/noble/what have you, but that it has to be balanced with their own intentions and with their own ambitions. I believe they first sensed NATO as something meant to contain militarism within central Europe itself (i.e. prevent another German war, and that's it), but go no farther. To that end, they think NATO has probably outlived its usefulness the same as all the Coalitions (7?) against Napoleon Bonaparte did. And that it is worth going back to an Enlightenment-Era status quo of monarchs muscling in on one another every now and again but not necessarily capturing the others' capital city. What Russia thinks of NATO in toto at this exact moment? I don't know. A lot of that perspective will be focused through the current war in Ukraine. And I imagine they do see that as (now at least) a holding action against NATO until the latter's will to fight expires. And not a fight over Ukraine itself necessarily.

My belief, of course, is that ideas like this are full of crud...
No. But the counter argument is that a nation cannot have absolute security unless all potential enemies have absolute insecurity. So long as Russia views any other nation or alliance as having the power to withstand Russian force, in their mind, that makes them a threat. NATO is not a threat, in that it has no reason or desire to harm Russia. But is seen as a threat, because it prevents Russia from doing anything they want to others.
It's not a threat to Russia's internationally recognized sovereign territorial integrity. It is a threat to Russia's future territorial ambitions under Vladimir Putin.

This and the ideas are a threat.
sad , isn't it ? Stuff like these are supposed to create a background that the West is not an enemy of poor Ivan , blown up for years and stuff and getting into shape in their traditional way of doing stuff , which will end up in a lot more dead people . So , like how about not telling the same stuff here as well ? Bucha and washing machines and tractors , there is a place for them , right ?

With authoritarian and autocratic systems, fear is always a major political tool, the primary and preferred one even. Those polar opposite attitudes then bleed over into their style of international politics.

It's why the rivalry is systemic.
Nato has invaded stuff, just not in Russia.

NATO has never invaded other nations under its own provisions, I think. NATO missions in Ex-Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and against piracy were mandated by the UN, or nations pleading for assistance in dealing with domestic security threats. Both NATO member states and Russia bombed Islamic State insurgents as per the request of Iraq and Syria for aid.

Also, NATO doesn't expand per se; Democracies apply for membership status of their own free will. Russia may think that NATO expands aggressively towards Russia, but that's likely because they don't consider candidate nations like former Soviet republics as sovereign nations with their own legitimate governments, national identities and right to enter security alliances of their own choosing. Therefore a nation like Ukraine can't apply for NATO membership, because Ukraine is not a legitimate sovereign nation - from Putin's Russia point of view.
I doubt Iraq, Syria, Libya, others, cared about the distinction you are making. Typically you don't try to annex stuff that aren't next to you, so I am afraid this may be the only reason you haven't seen that too from US etc.
Tbf, that is only half-true. The public in the US likely wouldn't be happy with annexations. That said, they don't have US majorities in the to-be-annexed countries either, just oil.
Okay, give us an example of a nation that NATO invaded, defeated and then added its territory to one of its own member states then.
I think you missed the edit. Are we ok now? :)
Simply put, US has no incentive to annex those lands. They typically do what they want by setting up a protectorate, making sure that some bandit group officially asked for them to help - such as the UCK in Kosovo, who were a criminal group according to the US and EU just before they bombed Serbia for 3 months.
But it plays a role in it being a potential threat, unlike some country not having invaded anyone in decades etc :)

The whole idea of NATO is to be a potential threat to anyone who thinks about initiating hostile actions against any of its member states.
Top Bottom