• papertowels@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Once a country is involved in a conflict, they cannot join NATO. You are proposing a logical catch 22 in which countries that join NATO only do so out of fear mongering (in your opinion), and countries that actually are involved in conflicts cannot join NATO, and thus will not be protected by the US. Finally, NATO countries aren’t being attacked, so unless you recognize the value of deterrence, there will never really be a chance to provide examples that fit into the framework you’ve set up.

    I hope you do recognize the value of deterrence, and I also hope you recognize someone can’t provide examples of things that were prevented due to deterrence, since they never happened.

    • Cyclohexane@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      The threat of Russian involvement in Ukraine was known wayyyy ahead of the invasion actually occurring. Ukraine tried hard to join NATO to “deter” it but they never allowed it. So yeah, they don’t deter shit.

      If Russia had plans to invade Finland like they did Ukraine, we don’t know if that would have gotten them into NATO.

      • papertowels@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Which attempt to join NATO are you talking about? IIRC one was retracted by the president of Ukraine and the other was already after crimea.

        What’s your reasoning behind Finland being a bad example again, beyond a “fear mongering” label that you’ve applied without explaining?