[Al-Rik]

And that translates into the need to invade another country, incur massive debts, create instability for little gain how, exactly?

Just because it's the US' modus operandi does not mean it can work for anyone else.

Invading an other Country was also Germany's modus operandi 1999 in the War against Yugoslavia.
Germany used the NATO to crush the Serbian Military, so Yugoslavia wasn't able to fight effectively in Kosovo, causing the secession of it.

There was no Mandate from the UN, there was no attack from Yugoslavia against a NATO Country and the Germany Constitution strictly forbids any military action that can be defined as war of aggression...
....but that War created at 14 year peace after 10 years of war. 

The war against Yugoslavia was only possible with the NATO. No single European Nation would have been able to fight it, and even an alliance between for example Italy, Austria and Germany (indirect affected from the Balkan Wars because of the refugees and the unrest in the emigrant communitys ) wouldn't have had the needed Military and political power. At least without stronger national Military.
That also applies to the Air-strikes against Libyan Troops loyal to Gaddafi during the Libyan civil War.

Those are the conflicts of the future, not a big scale invasion. If Russian and the NATO may have a clash it will be probably at different sides during a hypothetical (?) Civil War in Belarus or Ukraine, and it would be more political than militaristic. The ongoing Syrian Civil War is a good model for such an scenario, isn't it ? 

And the future doesn't looks bright or peaceful. Will every Nation in the world adopt in the near or far future the western style of government and economy ?
That would end grave conflicts between the whose nations, and would bring history (seen as an evolutionary process leading to a perfect society without grave conflicts) to an end.

IMHO it doesn't seem so. It looks more that Countries like Russia, China, Turkey, the Arab Nations and Iran are quite happy with their way of living and ready to promote their lifestyle as an alternative to the western lifestyle. Even in the Western Societies there are many Individuals that consider the western way of life as decadent, ineffective, over individualistic, corrupt and dangerous to the whole world.

Every there those non western lifestyles are clashing against western lifestyles ( and the US/UK media does a lot to promote it all around the world ) there is conflict.
Mainly peaceful conflict between political organisations, sometimes violent clashes in Nations (like the protests in Turkey) up to civil wars (like in Syria) or even violence between states.

Disbanding the NATO would weaken the military and political power of the western nations, so that actions like the War against Yugoslavia 1999 or the War against Libya won't be possible any more. If this would be good or not is a Judgement everybody has to do on it's own.
IMHO is being weak never a good Idea, and being weak doesn't giving anyone or any Nation a higher moral ground. You can only chose a peaceful solution if a non peaceful solutions is a realistic option.

[The E]

I think you're mistaking an intervention to prevent atrocities with an invasion with intend to occupy and exploit.

[Bobboau]

NATO is good if for one reason, it keeps NATO countries from fighting each other.

[Luis Dias]

I think you're mistaking an intervention to prevent atrocities with an invasion with intend to occupy and exploit.

Ninja'd.

[The E]

Also, something else:

There was no Mandate from the UN, there was no attack from Yugoslavia against a NATO Country and the Germany Constitution strictly forbids any military action that can be defined as war of aggression...
....but that War created at 14 year peace after 10 years of war. 

So Resolution 1244 is just something we collectively imagined?

Oh, and you would not believe the arguments in parliament surrounding the decision to send units of the Bundeswehr out.

[Mika]

Also, not to put too fine a point on it, but what exactly does Poland have that Russia would like to acquire by force? Land wars are no longer profitable for anyone involved in them.

Ummm, the cost of war hasn't really stopped anyone. This is exactly the sort of thing what happens when your neighbor is Russia, there is a constant testing of your national defense readiness on the border - that's just the way they operate. I think Sweden failed last month when Russian aircraft ventured into their airspace and fighters were scrambled from Latvia. Turned out Sweden did not have aerial response capability at all on the weekends. And yes, this does happen time by time with Finnish airspace too - they made the incursions public at some point around 1990s (several dozens times per month). That activity has decreased by some amount, but it still happens. During the major military exercises it is guaranteed that you'll find Russian signal intelligence scrambling your radio frequencies. And so on, there's lots of little things and comments like "defending Russian property anywhere in the world". It is these sort of actions that lead Russian neighbors to believe that it is definitely not a wise call to think they aren't interested in annexing something if they want to.

There has been a discussion whether Finland should hop in the NATO or not for the last 10 years. The problem is, a lot of people see that NATO is forced to decide whether Finland is considered a loss, or as a must defend with all available forces if things go awry (the worst thing is that we might not actually know this decision). If we are a loss, there's no point in hopping to NATO. If we are a considered as "must defend at all costs", that would mean nukes here and nukes on the other side of the border. Neither of those options sound very good.

NATO and EU both have reduced the need for national competition in Europe, but let's see what happens during this financial crisis. NATO cannot escape the monetary reality either, and it is likely that some changes will happen.

[Dragon]

Couldn't have put it better. You're obviously from a country that does border Russia. Even a small area like Kaliningrad Oblast (which Poland borders) is a lot of trouble, and neither Belarus nor Ukraine are much of a defense. NATO is perhaps the only reason why the situation in Poland isn't like what's happening there, and Russians still do their share of meddling (notably by messing with the gas pipeline I mentioned, but not only). Sufficient to say, NATO has been rather important in keeping Russia at bay. The Bear has somewhat calmed down lately, but is by no means sleeping.

Also, while Finland's situation isn't exactly bright, Georgia had it even worse. They've been pretty much given a definite answer, and that is that they're considered a loss. Russia didn't take long to take advantage of that fact.

[Mika]

In Finland's case, it is a bit different. Russia has so far been able to influence the Finnish government to get what they want up to a certain degree, and I suppose this would keep on going. Unfair yes, but we aren't doing actually that bad with them and at the moment, the trade with Russia is actually increasing. But I don't think you can live next to a huge country without these kinds of considerations and incidents. It is a general problem of the borderline states, but you can actually use that as an advantage too. I do recall one funny quote from a certain book of WWII era, as there is a radio announcement that Soviet forces have taken a battle contact with Finnish forces, a person flatly states "Don't the ****ers have enough land on their side already?" 

That was the era of communism, now Russia apparently behaves more like in the Czar's era. And please don't think that this has anything to do with an average Russian, it hasn't.

[Al-Rik]

I think you're mistaking an intervention to prevent atrocities with an invasion with intend to occupy and exploit.

And you believe that the occupation of Kosovo isn't about exploration or imperialism ?

No Nation uses military force to end or prevent atrocities without any self interest.
That's the reason no Nation tried to stop the Massacre in Rwanda.

Some NATO and EU Members haven been indirectly affected by the Civil Wars in the former Yugoslavian Republics.
Stopping Wars that cause a massive wave of refugees and even unrest in Yugoslavian Emigrants living in Germany and Austria was in the interest of Germany and Austria, stopping Massacres in Rwanda not (at least not enough to start a war).

The Wars on the Balkan also threaten the possible expansion of the EU toward South Easter Europe, so ending the War was also in the interest of the big European Nations.
Some define this as an typical form of imperialism.

And even the opinion that the Kosovo War was all about exploration of natural Resources and securing the route for a pipeline isn't uncommon - at least in "progressive" circles.

Also, something else:

There was no Mandate from the UN, there was no attack from Yugoslavia against a NATO Country and the Germany Constitution strictly forbids any military action that can be defined as war of aggression...
....but that War created at 14 year peace after 10 years of war. 

So Resolution 1244 is just something we collectively imagined?

Oh, and you would not believe the arguments in parliament surrounding the decision to send units of the Bundeswehr out.

Resolution 1244 is from June 1999, the War started in March 1999. How can a Resolution made after the War justify starting a War ?
In that case... there are also Resolutions about the Occupation of Iraq after 2003...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1546

Oh, and I remember the discussion in the parliament well. And I remember the discussion in the German Left.
The antiimperialistic Left was against the war because they saw it as a typical War of NATO Imperialism
The antigerman Left was against the war because they saw it as first signs of rewoken German Imperialism
The undogmatic Left was against the war because they saw it as a typical War against the maybe crude, but at whole positive socialistic System of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
The Left mainstream was against the war because they saw it as a typical War for Oil (the Pipeline !) and Ressources (there are Lead Mines...) - before the War the criticised that nobody stops the killing because "there is  no Oil"...
The Pacifists have been against the war because war haven't solved anything ever and would only lead to more violence.

But to come back to the topic:
Dissolving the NATO would weaken the Western - especially the European Nations, making  military and political operations like the Kosovo War or the War against Libya impossible.
And being weak isn't helpful or desirable.

[karajorma]

NATO is good if for one reason, it keeps NATO countries from fighting each other.

I've heard it said quite a few times that NATO membership is the only thing that stopped Greece and Turkey going at it again.

[Luis Dias]

To quote "leftists" as sources of truth regarding the "real" motives of any war is somewhat a preposterous, useless exercise in futility.

I won't venture at such exercises myself, merely to state that the Yuguslavia war wasn't exactly started by the Germans or anyone else but the Yuguslavians themselves against themselves. That genocides were happening and that the worst kinds of fascists were in power killing people in the middle of ****ing europe. I remember my father railing against 'murica's imperialism in all of that, and I was thinking "yeah, maybe, but wasn't it really better that NATO stopped the **** that was going on?" Irrespectively of "intents"?

It was also morally good, in the sense that it created a good behavioral manual to all dictators. Give NATO the excuse that you are being all genocidal and so on, and the probability of your backs being hammered to bits rises quite fast, irrespectively of the "good" intentions that 'merica, germans or french might or might not have.