Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

loukanikos wrote

I'm not an expert on NATO history by any means but I whole heartedly disagree. The fatal flaw in this line of reasoning, as I see it, is that just because something serves a useful purpose or is necessary -- as NATO and it's expansion has and is -- does not mean it's above criticism.

This is similar to the "oh you think we should improve society somewhat, yet you participate in society" argument.

To accept that NATO expansion was good simply because it helped certain people at a certain time is to accept a lack or originality and innovation in world politics and diplomacy.

You know what else helps a lot of people, saves untold millions of lives? Antibiotics, fossil fuels, synthetic fertilizer. Can those things also be the cause of our downfall as a species? Absolutely. Everything is good until it's not anymore. Its up to us as critical thinkers to imagine new world systems and new ways of living instead of just continuing old ones because they're there.

NATO and it's expansion in the 90s was a classic example of Statists just pursuing a continuation of an existing, cold war era policy when the moment called for something new and better.

Am I speaking from a place of privilege here? Definitely. Do I have the benefit of a quarter century of retrospect? Surely. Does that mean I should shut the fuck up? I think not. To accept the status quo of the international ststem as the best possible outcome is in my view not just unimaginative but perhaps a betrayal of our duty to recognize the failings of statism.

9