The worst-case scenario is now a possible one: European troops fighting off an invasion largely alone.
It’s by no means clear the Europeans would succeed. Romanian and other European officials at the exercise in Cincu, about 260 kilometers (162 miles) north of Bucharest by road, voiced concerns about how long it would take for NATO allies to make it to the front.
French four-star General Philippe de Montenon said he’s confident Europe could prevail, even without the US on side. “The direction of history is a progressive disengagement of the United States from the European continent,” he said.
This is bad analysis. You may disagree with the invasion and call it illegal while simultaneously understanding that NATO is a military alliance created specifically against the USSR and should have been dismantled (as was promised to former Soviet citizens during the dissolution of the country). NATO was never supposed to get to Poland, let alone Ukraine or Finland.
Add to that the Victoria Nuland leaked audios discussing which president the US would put in place during the Euromaidan in 2014, the anti-Russian policies the Ukrainian government has taken for the past decade towards ethnic Russians in Eastern Ukraine, and you have plenty more arguments than “Russia just wanted to invade Ukraine and spoil their economic and diplomatic relations with all of Europe just because Pootin bad”.
Again, you can still oppose and criticize the invasion, but try to do some realistic geopolitical analysis beyond the Lord of the Rings “Sauron is very evil and so are the Orcs”.
I don’t know what Nita was never supposed to get to Poland is supposed to mean. NATO was a defence pact to defend against any threat to its members, the idea was to prevent something like what happened in the first world war where everyone ended up fighting each other because of all of the complicated interrelations that had all been independently agreed.
The reason they ended up being butting heads with the USSR was the USSR was constantly interfering with Western affairs. Just as Russia is doing today.
NATO has a policy of never initiating an attack the only reason the military would ever enact would be if a threat was made against one of its member states.
There is zero reason for Russia to consider NATO a threat. But they clearly do so NATO has to defend itself that’s not fear-mongering that’s just being pragmatic.
My problem is your interpretation of NATO’s fairly logical response to a potential threat as seditious or part of some evil conspiracy on the part of the industrial military complex. Sure they’re benefiting from this but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re involvement isn’t partisan.