Honestly, the middle east could have gotten better, there was a possibility that the dictatorships would get replaced by proper democracy, I think the US didn't realize how far down corruption and authoritarianism were rooted in those countries, it is like a Hydra, cut one head, many more grew.
For example, Panama, Chile, Germany, Japan, South Korea all turned out better after US intervention. But Afghanistan, Iraq
and Libya got worse.
It is tough to choose the lesser of two evil, when you are in a democratically free country, you do wonder if the opportunity shows up, should you go help others overturn their dictator, and if so, will they then be able to establish a free democracy or will that just replace one dictator with a worse one? But what also happens is the fear, that if more and more countries lose freedom and democracy, and become dictatorships, then countries in free democracies get scared that they will be next, which tend to push them to act and try and overthrow other dictatorships when the opportunity shows up.
Look, long time ago I became aware that most people who use "democracy" or "freedom" like it's a new kind of religion are permanently brainwashed, you can't even know what's trolling anymore. Anyway, I won't go deep into why certain countries are doing well economically (hint, try to think of the current world order as an empire, some people are punished some are rewarded and most of it is controlled by the empire capital, Japan & S.Korea are useful to surround China so they get to play certain role, when Japan do better than expected/allowed it get punished for that with sanctions, etc).
The point is even if we accepted "democracy" and "freedom" as the new religion, US is the most anti-new-religion country here, US supported the worst dictatorships and still doing that (Saddam, KSA, UAE, South Africa, Sadat & Mubarak Egypt, Jordan, Israel....) and it attempted uncountable number of successful or failed coups around the world since at least 1940's (Syria). All or most US actions can be clearly explained by some geopolitical / Economical reasons. we really can't know if the "middle east" can do better or not until USA leave it alone and stop stealing/controlling it's oil or orchestrating a war there every few years.
It might happened that you were born in some rich country that got benefited from the current world order, enjoy that before it ends (it's changing a bit right now actually) but don't assume that you have the higher moral ground to tell how other people should live, because you don't.
Just so you know, there used to be a single Korea. One of them is doing OK now, although it took like 35 years after the US invaded before SK transformed itself into a democratic country, which Koreans did IN SPITE of American support for their dictator. The other one is possibly the worst regime currently active on Earth.
When you say Russia, do you mean Putin's authoritarian regime?
I'm failing to see the threat of NATO to Russia otherwise. NATO only ever goes against dictators and acts of ethnic or religious cleansing and such things as territorial conquest, etc.
But even given Putin, his regime having access to Nuclear Weapons, I still doubt NATO is a threat. Look at North Korea, even though US has military bases in South Korea, no one is touching North Korea.
So in my opinion, it's pretty clear to me the whole NATO thing is false pretense and justification hiding an ulterior motive, very similar to the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Let me know if there's something I don't know otherwise.
>NATO only ever goes against dictators and acts of ethnic or religious cleansing
NATO invaded Libya after promising to leave it alone after stopping their nuclear weapons program.
NATO supports Saudi Arabia's war of aggression against Yemen. I shouldnt have to remind you that Saudi Arabia is run by a brutal dictator.
NATO was set up with the singular purpose to oppose Russia.
It's has always threatened Russia. It will always threaten Russia. Putin is staking everything on this war in a desperate attempt to push back that threat with one hand on the nuclear button, making it abundantly clear that all we have to do is back off.
> Russia and NATO together doesn't make sense to me. Who would they defend against?
Central Asian Islamic extremists?
> NATO is made to promote democratic values, Putin runs a dictatorship, how does that work?
Russia wasn't clearly a dictatorship when it was admitted to the Partnership for Peace, or when Putin wanted direct admission to NATO without the usual accession process, though, yeah, it is now.
Someone who was unreasonably optimistic might think NATO membership would have mellowed Putin rather than just letting him jam up the alliances consensus-based processes.
Or, alternatively that once in NATO that he could take over the Baltics without opposition having already stationed troops there as part of the NATO taskforce. There were plenty of really good reasons not to want Russia in NATO at the time.
For example, Panama, Chile, Germany, Japan, South Korea all turned out better after US intervention. But Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya got worse.
It is tough to choose the lesser of two evil, when you are in a democratically free country, you do wonder if the opportunity shows up, should you go help others overturn their dictator, and if so, will they then be able to establish a free democracy or will that just replace one dictator with a worse one? But what also happens is the fear, that if more and more countries lose freedom and democracy, and become dictatorships, then countries in free democracies get scared that they will be next, which tend to push them to act and try and overthrow other dictatorships when the opportunity shows up.