The alliance's historic mission was to defend European countries against the Soviet threat, and even though today's Russia represents a strategic challenge according to many European countries for multitple reasons, it is still not even close to the heels of NATO's spending on defense, so you could say it vastly outspends Russia, even the US spends more on defense than Russia and any other NATO country, so what's the actual threat here? You say it hasn't shown any inkling on offensive posturing towards an invasion of Russia yet it has been getting closer and closer to its borders and deploying missiles at Russia's doorstep, which is something that's been going on for years, not sure how's this a non-offensive posture, it's more of a provocative posture than anything else. Again, if it were the other way around and Russia placed its missiles on the US border between Canada and Mexico, it wouldn't make any difference either, or can you say that the US would not be concerned and feel threatened in such situation?.
I mean, there's some stuff here that is correct but you're throwing so much into it that it kinda lacks nuance:
- NATO as a whole spends a ton more on defence than Russia does, correct. A large part of this though comes from one country - the US - who is obviously under no threat, but NATO's lack of funding isn't exactly a secret recently. Adding to that, the countries that you could argue are under a more severe threat of offensive action are the former Warsaw Pact members, which includes successor States of the Soviet Union in the baltic region. Those States spend
a lot less on defence than Russia does, and evidently from an imperialist perspective Putin isn't keen on that playing field evening out. So yes, NATO spends a ton more as a whole, but that's precisely the point for those new members.
- Now, moving weapons closer to the border is something that requires a lot of specifics, but I'd just say first that there's a big difference between NATO the alliance of States and the foreign policy of States part of NATO. Judging by your examples, I assume you're talking about the US policy, which did make a ton of baffling decisions in power projection in the past few decades. But it's not a NATO issue, like the Cuban Missile Crisis wasn't. It was the Soviet Union and the US playing way too loose with something way too dangerous, and both agreeing to move back at the brink. Putin knows all of that, but it's obviously way more convenient to scapegoat NATO for his interests.
- Also, while weapons have been deployed in more States near Russia "for years", it bears repeating what has happened in those years. Georgia wanted to join NATO, Russia invades, splits the country, leaves behind a husk of a government that strangely has not mentioned NATO membership seriously since. Ukraine has a revolution to get closer to Europe and NATO, Russia takes out Crimea, arms separatists, plays coy about an invasion for years before finally pulling the trigger. Is it any real surprise that a defensive pact that includes former Soviet republics sees this and thinks, well uh geez maybe we should be ready for anything? To use your example, I'm Canadian but if uh we left direct political control of the US, saw it bang war rhetoric and laments our loss, yeah I'd be interested in getting someone's help too. Saying it's NATO as a whole, like the past two points, just doesn't encapsulate that issue for me.
- And I don't really like this point because it's a bit pedantic, but Russia has been sharing a border with NATO since... 1949, as Norway is a founding member of the alliance. Now that doesn't really mean a lot in itself because there's plenty of reasons why Russia's concern with Norway is minimal, but those concerns also make the NATO excuse very flimsy. It has no real imperalist interest in Norway, that's definitely not true in former Soviet Republics, so Putin's regime never actually brings it up.
NATO obviously has issues - the Kosovo War was a complete debacle for it - but there's completely legitimate reasons as to why weaker States that left the Soviet orbit are adamant about joining. There's also reasons why Russia doesn't want them to join, but I give way less credence into strong States desiring to keep their power projection. And this is really what the NATO question is about. It's not about the US vs Russia as a geopolitical rivalry, it's not even about NATO and the failings of the pact, it's about Ukraine vs Russia, or Baltic States vs Russia, or was about Georgia vs Russia. That's what matters, not great powers analysis that skirms over the insecurities of millions.
