Except it actually is a defensive alliance, meant to make it that much harder for Russia to attempt to take other nations by force and to help make it so 'salami tactics' of small incursions and land grabs are not able to happen.
Maybe the US should not protect every Eastern European nation that asks for help? Is Russia wrong for invading other nations yes. But why should America defend everyone else?
And how is this anyone else's business who America helps?
American's can talk about who America helps or does not help. An American told a British person that we don't have to be world police.
And what kind of empty passive-aggressive argument is that? By that logic you don't *have* to go to work or cut your hair.
Umm no there is a difference between doing things that are needed for yourself like going to work to provide for yourself or cutting your hair, and doing things for other people like going to soup kitchens or helping out the homeless.
It could, but it would be a stupid thing to do for a variety of reasons. If you want to argue USA would have all sorts of benefits and no major downsides out of it, do that properly, instead of beating around the bush with non-arguments like that.
I could turn it around on you and tell you to say why it would be a stupid thing to do. I was also not saying we should be isolationist in Europe I don't think we should be(thought that is just because of selfish reasons I have friends and family there and I don't want them to fall under Russia's curtain Americans who only care about America have valid reasons to not care) again I think we should protect Europe it's Asia that I am isolationist about(except for Japan and South Korea those we have to defend), I was responding to people talking about whether NATO was expansionist or aggressive, or whether it was only for self defense.
Because no country, and especially USA, cannot just ignore what happens outside of its borders, especially since the age of jet liners and ICBMs has begun, and that's without even getting into the economic connections.
So not Asia except the allies... See the problem?
Well logically defense of alliance members inherently excludes isolationism, so there you have it.
Why can't we ignore things outside the USA? Also jets can be stopped. As for ICBM's launching those means the end of the world. The thing you are correct about is that economic connections affect us, but again isolationists want to cut those connections.
Again why are nations enemies or allies? Russia isn't an enemy just because, it's an enemy because the US decided it wanted to have interests in Eastern Europe, and Russia has interests in Eastern Europe these conflict. If America wanted to we could be allies with Russia and it wouldn't really affect us. It would affect Europe though pretty badly.
Well yes but isolationists don't want to add more people to be allies why should we? Like we want to protect Korea, and Japan. Why should we also protect Vietnam or Laos, or you get the idea.
Because however much you want to ignore them, they do not have stupid isolationists lobbying them to ignore you. World economy is a thing too.
USA and company want a "rules based international order". Russia and China want "sphere of influence based international order". FIGHT!
Because Chinese leaders for example aren't silly isolationists and will absolutely try to get Vietnam or Laos to help them as help against your allies, by hook or by crook, especially if you decide to be silly isolationists and not get in the way of that.
Are you acting clueless or are you really this clueless? Do you have the most basic idea of how military alliances work and why they exist?
Even if they did try to be isolationist the American government and other globalist nations would not let them. True Russia and China have no interest in being isolationist they want their own empire. But the US has meddled in isolationist nations(like Japan) which caused them to become a problem for everyone later (if Japan was allowed to be isolationist they would not have done the whole ww2 Imperial Japan thing)
No, the people who are the elites in the USA want a "rules based international order" aka American Empire. American isolationists are perfectly fine with a sphere of influence based international order. Again that's what the Monroe doctrine is the New world would be our sphere and we don't care what goes on outside it.
Umm nukes are the final guarantor of sovereignty. If we are truly committed to protecting those nations then nuclear weapons would be on the table, and no ammount of allies will help against that.
Again, conventional military are only useful for offensive operations. At the end of the day if you are satisfied with what you have and don't care about what goes on outside your borders you only need nukes, and then genocide whoever invades you. America's nuclear arsenal is far more scary than it's army.
All the neighbors who coincidentally who have Western friendly kleptocrats funnily enough.
Conveniently installed by a coup by the US and is vassals, don't forget.
True, NO ONE has an interest in being isolationist. It's a unfixably ridiculous idea, on the same level as greens, pacifists, and anarchists.
Well, what international order do they want then?
The isolationists out of all people would explicitely want to fail enforcing their sphere of influence (fuck, even the interventionist establishment is half assed at it at best), also it's not XIX century anymore, so there is no reason why US sphere of influnce should have that specific shape and size.
Americans, or most other people for that matter, would prefer a "rules based international order" than unlimited world nuclear proliferation.
LMAO... There are whole treatises written on it, you can't counter stuff like hybrid warfare or naval blockade with nukes, you are repeating what is essentially smartass 14 year old takes on national defense.
Well that's because the only nations that tried isolationism were weak ones. It did work for Japan for 200 years though which I should remind you is a very good time something lasting centuries is very good.
Umm I said it below.
Isolationists only care about their own nation, they don't see benefit engaging with Europe of Asia, but they do see rightly or wrongly that securing South America is bennefical.
All nuclear powers don't want nuclear proliferation because nuclear powers are also conventional powerhouses. Nuclear weapons are expensive not every nation can make them but if they could that would make invasions impossible.
I will watch the video later.
As opposed to the sodomy based military and lying based politics of Russia, who view their neighbors not as sovereign nations, but extensions of Imperial Russia to be reclaimed.