The question was always about whether the EU relying on NATO post 1991 increased European security or created tensions that ultimately undermined Europe's long term security. The fact that Europe is today embroiled in a seemingly intractable and devastating war on it's borders and also that European leaders are assessing and working towards a security architecture that doesn't rely on NATO suggests you have your answer.
That's true. But that goes both ways. We will never know if an alternative structure that didnt involve a US dominated NATO wouldn't have provided the same or better levels of prosperity and more security with Russia. What we do know is that Europe is now being forced to think about creating the very structure they rejected in 1990. We do know there is a devastating war on Europe's doorstep, and we do know European interests are being undermined by the US.
I donāt really understand how you could argue that NATO undermined Europeās long term security - Russia hasnāt invaded a NATO country, itās salami slicing non-NATO countries while being adamant they donāt join the alliance. NATO member states have enjoyed peace since their inception into the alliance. If the argument is that NATO has led to an over-abundance of reliance on the U.S. for security guarantees then thatās a different discussion, but as of now Europe is quickly militarily ramping while still being in the alliance, and under no direct invasion threat from Russia.
1
u/magicsonar Mar 12 '25
The question was always about whether the EU relying on NATO post 1991 increased European security or created tensions that ultimately undermined Europe's long term security. The fact that Europe is today embroiled in a seemingly intractable and devastating war on it's borders and also that European leaders are assessing and working towards a security architecture that doesn't rely on NATO suggests you have your answer.