[Always A Marine]

A lot of people would say this is exactly why NATO should not have been expanded eastward. We find ourselves on the hook defending tiny countries no one cares about. The original NATO made sense. The new one doesn’t.

I am one of those who disagreed with the eastward expansion of NATO. By aggressively recruiting former Soviet satellites, the formerly defensive alliance shifted to offense by planting its flag on Russia's doorstep -- and then attempting to flank its "former" enemy and seize its sole year-round warm water outlet. The aggressive expansion also diluted NATO's franchise, reducing the small, united and committed alliance to a large and disparate gaggle with less in common and fewer shared interests.

[FreeReign]

By aggressively recruiting former Soviet satellites, the formerly defensive alliance shifted to offense by planting its flag on Russia's doorstep -

It was really up to the people of Estonia if they wanted to receive the NATO flag. Being a former "Soviet satellite" should have nothing to do with it, at least morally.

And your description that Estonia was "aggressively recruited" is hyperbole.

[lodi90]

By aggressively recruiting former Soviet satellites, the formerly defensive alliance shifted to offense by planting its flag on Russia’s doorstep -

---

Utter rubbish. Where did you come up with that? Alex Jones? Savage?

The fact is the new NATO members lined up and happily joined NATO. No recruitment necessary. They have plenty of graves in their country to remind them that periodically Russia murders them. That’s all the motivation they needed to seek NATO membership.