That's very simple. No matter who ends up in Biden's seat later, red, pink or blue, why wouldn't they want the international significance of that seat they will be fighting for increased, rather than ceding some of it to the seat in Moscow?
And it definitely helps that the countries in question have experience with being under the influence of that latter and overwhelmingly say no than you don't come again.
Except they don't justify it on power itself, they are justifying it based on the cultural effects NATO brings. You'll also recall that this is an extremely recent development of the last few decades too; they weren't big supporters of NATO until recently. Hell, tell me why people like George Soros are suddenly funding "NATO groupies" as you call it and getting their message out there? Kindness of their hearts or they realize/support what NATO is doing, and as I am telling you right now they are?
Atlantic Council is not NATO and takes Soros' OSF funding, which makes it obvious why it hires this kind of people.
It is a non-profit which is a part of this:
en.wikipedia.org
Do not mistake glorified NATO groupies for NATO.
The Atlantic Council is separate in name only and back in the 1990s they were talking about using NATO for exactly what I'm saying:
The case for enlarging NATO "is compelling and rooted in the most vital security interests of this country," Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott told a gathering of ambassadors, journalists, and interested parties at the Atlantic Council May 20.
Talbott placed the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's (NATO) decision to take on new members -- expected to be made formally at the Madrid Conference in July -- in the context of 20th century Europe's wars and President Clinton's desire to assure a "safer and more prosperous" continent in the future.
Although the old threat which gave NATO much of its meaning during the Cold War era has disappeared, new ones are appearing, Talbott said, citing the war in Bosnia in particular.
In fact, he added, NATO does not need an enemy to justify its existence. "It needs an enduring purpose, and that it has: namely, to undergird transatlantic security, to provide the mechanisms for coordinating mutual defense, and to maintain the collective will and capability to meet new threats."
While NATO retains its military capacity, Talbott said, it can "more than ever before, foster integration and cooperation between what we used to think of as East and West."
Moreover, NATO's open door "can foster integration and cooperation among the Central Europeans themselves," he added, noting that "in pursuit of their goal to join NATO, a number of Central European states have accelerated their internal reforms and improved relations with each other." Interest in the Alliance has already spurred border agreements between Poland and Lithuania, the Czech Republic and Germany, Hungary and Romania, and Romania and Ukraine.
In addition to remaining a military alliance, NATO has an important political role, Talbott said. It can act as a catalyst for consolidating democracy, establishing the rule of law, promoting religious tolerance and human rights, and encouraging civilian control of the military.
Talbott did not identify which countries he believes will be brought into NATO at Madrid, but stressed that the conference will only be "the beginning of a process, not the end." No democracy that wants to join is excluded, he said.
Which as the examples of Hungary, Poland and Turkey directly show, she's just self-backpatting her own political faction for its victories.
Based on what? That you persist with the fiction it's one politician claiming something shows you've either not read it or you're acting in bad faith on this.
I'm pretty sure the Kemalists were not huge fans of the LGBT movement either.
They've also been out of power long before it became a global political force.
www.hurriyetdailynews.com
www.newsbreakapp.com