Hackers post fake stories on real news sites 'to discredit NATO'

Since the 1940s.

> And from who?

Since WW2: Russia. The US military's position in Europe post WW2 enabled the destroyed, fragile nations of Europe to rebuild in the face of a Soviet onslaught to conquer as much territory in Europe as they could.

Also: Serbia, right in Europe's backyard. See: the Kosovo War. [1]

Also: Ukraine today. The sole reason Ukraine exists at all still, is that the US poses a severe threat to Russia were it to attempt a full annexation move using its military. They couldn't be certain how the US might react. Remove the US from that equation, and Russia knows the Western European powers will do nothing to stop it from taking Ukraine (other than protesting at the UN and throwing on some sanctions).

Russia would immediately begin annexing territory in several prominent Eastern European nations, along with militarily challenging several others (eg Poland), were the US to pull its military resources and declare it had no interest in European affairs. The Western European powers would do nothing to stop that and could do nothing. France and Britain have nuclear weapons, which would only be used as a threat if their own territory was at risk (which it would not be; France isn't going to nuclear war with Russia over annexed Eastern European territory). Among Western European nations only Britain and France are capable of operating their militaries beyond their own borders properly, and in those cases they can barely do that. This is fundamentally why it was the US that had to intervene to stop the Muslim genocide in Kosovo, because the Western European powers can't project their militaries well and lack the capabilities the US has.

[1] https://www.hrw.org/report/2001/10/27/under-orders/war-crime...

> 1. Germany isn't on the Eastern Front. Poland actually borders Russia (the exclave on the Baltic.)

The Kaliningrad exclave is quite small, but it poses a real danger when the Suwalki Gap is taken into account. Given Belarus' friendly ties with Russia, there is only a small band of land that needs to be cut off to trap the Baltic states. It's important to secure that stretch. Ideally, Belarus would serve as a buffer, but that's a very difficult thing to achieve. Also good would be the ceding of Kaliningrad to Poland and Lithuania (historically, that region was a vassal of the Polish Crown). Perhaps in exchange for recognition of Russia's annexation of Crimea. Good luck with that, I guess.

Ideally, the Central European states east of Germany can play the US, Germany/EU, and Russia off each other to guarantee that the region is free from hegemonic dominance. Historically until the late 18th century, Polish dominance guaranteed stability and peace in the region. As both historical heir and as the largest country of the block, it is important the Poland resume its historical and geopolitically necessary role if Poland and the other states represented in the Three Seas Initiative are to remain free and prosperous. The stability offered would also benefit European stability by creating a bulwark against both Western and Eastern imperial ambitions.

Is there any reason to be opposed to the existence of NATO other than: "I'd really like to invade country X, but can't because it's mean retaliation by x,y,z & n"

Getting rid of nuclear arms means surrendering to those who don't.