• 1bluepixel
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    The terrible message is precisely that NATO is only defensive in theory, but is willing to expand into the Pacific to defend a territory that is nowhere near its original purview.

    The problem with the “purely defensive” argument is that historically, NATO Article 5 has been invoked to declare a war on a country that only indirectly threatened a NATO ally’s regional stability. That’s how NATO ended up bombing Serbia, which was doing despicable things to Albanians, but was not threatening NATO sovereignty to a degree that justifies Article 5.

    Add these two together and China’s opposition to a NATO presence in the Pacific makes a whole lot of sense.