Neither was created to defend against the country that no longer exists.
Pretty funny that they’re even still around.
“Neither was created to defend against the country that no longer exists.”
Then what is Russia doing on the UN Security Council, with veto power? RUSSIA was not a member of the UN when it was created, and when the Security Council was formed. So, how did Russia get to segue onto the Security Council? It would have made far more sense for India to join the Security Council than Russia.
But, the argument has been that Russia was the SUCCESSOR nation to the USSR (i.e., it assumed the international status and recognition of the USSR), and thus deserved to be on the Security Council. In which case, NATO — if its sole purpose was to resist Soviet aggression and expansionism — would still serve to resist Russia, as the Soviet Union’s successor state.
The best answer to all of this is to get rid of the UN all together.
Anyway; just my $.02.