A lot of memberwannabes rely on Article 5 of NATO, but as Nigel Farage asked himself, do you really believe NATO will start WWIII over a small country?! And how is these countries joining NATO benefiting the existing NATO members? Obviously, Russia has nothing more to lose given the sanctions, so, the only thing left is a direct NATO conforntation, but it seems that the West is more afraid of such conflict than Putin, who believes that this is inevitable and that if you're faced with an inevitable flight, it's better to strike first.
> And how is these countries joining NATO benefiting the existing NATO members?
Finland has one of the bigger armies in Europe (way bigger then many of the existing european NATO members). At least for the baltic NATO members Finland being a member is a huge boon basically blocking Russian fleet into the bay where Saint Petersburg is as the Gulf of Finland is rather narrow (you can literally see from Helsinki to Tallin if you go top of a tall building) completing the encirclement of Russia on its western border.
Sweden also helps with controlling the Baltic sea due to Gotland.
If NATO wouldn't react then it's a joke and effectively dissolved and Russians are free to invade whoever they feel stronger than.
Trashing the invading force seems like fast way to prevent the war from escalating.
I don't personally like the idea of joining a military alliance with state like Turkey in it. I mean, Greece and Turkey are both in NATO but Greece tries to maintain "rough" parity with materiel with Turkey for obvious historical reasons ..
So what happens if they decided to go town on each other someday? A5 invocation, first come first served? I really don't know what that would imply.
I'm baffled as to why anyone would listen to the shit coming out of Nigel Farage's mouth, let alone quote them as some sort of authority on anything. The man is an empty populist and doesn't deserve any attention.
I've heard others calling it "an article of faith", not just Farage. Well, NATO's existence is not preventing Russia's aggression assuming people believe Putin is crazy, a murderer, soulless, a war criminal, etc.; it's provoking it. If there was no NATO, Russia would be focusing on economic partnership, not feeling cornered by an obsoleted since 1991 alliance, which is increasing the member state's risks as now Russia builds alliances on the East. As a Bulgarian, I really doubt NATO will protect Bulgaria if Turkey or Russia attack our territory, so, pretty much to us this alliance is useless as it earsed our army and left our security in the hands of NATO, which member states have their security interest as top priority. We've prepaid 8 F-16 Block 70 years ago and they got severely delayed - just got an approval by congres (why was that necessary?!) for 8 more. So far, all we've got is a webpage [0] - not jets at least 2 years from now! Also, should I mention that Article 5 has never been tested yet? Also, if Trump wins in 2024, interesting thigns may happen to NATO then!
It's a confidence and trust thing thing. If NATO doesn't protect any of its members in case of attack , even Bulgaria, even against Turkey, NATO is dead - nobody would ever trust it and the alliance will fall apart. ( Of course for Bulgaria that would be of limited impact because there's the EU mutual defence clause).
Yes, a Trump like character in the White House might refuse to help, but the US isn't the only NATO member.
> Also, should I mention that Article 5 has never been tested yet
It has, the US invoked it after 9/11
As for you presumptions about NATO and Russia, you're just guessing, same as anybody. However seeing Russian atrocities across the world, I'm very happy there's an alliance containing them. They can't use NATO's existence as an excuse for their war crimes in Ukraine and you shouldn't be using that excuse for them. Their narrative has been that Ukraine isn't a real country. Without NATO, do you think they wouldn't have said the Baltics, Poland, and who knows who else also aren't real countries?
> And how is these countries joining NATO benefiting the existing NATO members?
Stability in Europe. The west doesn't want refugees from whatever country Russia decided to invade this week to show up on their doorstep all the time, or the supply chain interruptions that happen when war constantly breaks out. You might remember that NATO arose almost immediately after World War 2 which had a rather negative effect on Europe and European influence in the world.
> Obviously, Russia has nothing more to lose given the sanctions, so, the only thing left is a direct NATO conforntation,
Russia has plenty more to lose. Namely every major European power and the US unloading all their armaments on Russian cities that are very close to the border.
> but it seems that the West is more afraid of such conflict than Putin, who believes that this is inevitable and that if you're faced with an inevitable flight, it's better to strike first.
This is an absolutely unrealistic take. Russia _can not_ win major combat against NATO in any shape or form. They couldn't do it with their made up propaganda army and they certainly can't do it with their actual army.
