undefined | Better HN

0 pointsJuliate1y ago0 comments

That's not a gang against another here.

Those are democratic, sovereign countries, in an international order governed by law. Joining voluntarily a _defense_ alliance.

And one bully country that keeps on bullying, and pretends to be the victim of everyone, and unlawfully attacks a neighbouring country.

Despite its own twisted narrative, if someone took the wrong decision, that's Russia.

0 comments

pydry1y ago

NATO has participated in 4 wars in the last 20 years, 4 of which were offensive. Unfortunately underlining the word defense doesnt magically make it less of an offensive alliance.

The horseshoe theory applies here. Putin's supporters take equally orwellian positions to this.

JuliateOP1y ago

In the past 20 years, I see 2 that could be qualified as offensive, at most.

NATO's command in 2003 in Afghanistan came following an unanimous UN Security Council resolution; Russia even provided support. But yeah, let's count 1 here, given the disaster of the whole thing.

Involvement during the Libya campaign in 2011? under a UN mandate again; Russia didn't veto, abstained, and afterwise criticised how it's been interpreted on the ground. Let's count 1.

That makes 2.

NATO did not join the USA in Iraq.

Kosovo Force is a peacekeeping mission.

Ocean Shield was an anti-piracy mission.

Baltic Air Policing, following the Baltic states joining NATO in 2004, is practically a shared border patrol across these states.

Enhanced Forward Presence, since 2016 is a deterrence in response to Russia actions in 2014 in Crimea.

pydry1y ago

Lying to the security council about the intention to overthrow the government in Libya was probably the main action that changed Russia's view of NATO from "a risk" to "overtly hostile threat". Quite rightly.

It puzzles me why some people (you, but you're not the only one) think that gaining the UN mandate to conduct a humanitarian mission under false pretensions and THEN saying "we came. we saw. he died" exculpates NATO. It makes it so much fucking worse.

The orwellian/Putinesque thinking is evident here also. If you can excuse this you can excuse the invasion of Ukraine just as easily.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

pydry1y ago

NATO has participated in 4 wars in the last 20 years, 4 of which were offensive. Unfortunately underlining the word defense doesnt magically make it less of an offensive alliance.

The horseshoe theory applies here. Putin's supporters take equally orwellian positions to this.

JuliateOP1y ago

In the past 20 years, I see 2 that could be qualified as offensive, at most.

NATO's command in 2003 in Afghanistan came following an unanimous UN Security Council resolution; Russia even provided support. But yeah, let's count 1 here, given the disaster of the whole thing.

Involvement during the Libya campaign in 2011? under a UN mandate again; Russia didn't veto, abstained, and afterwise criticised how it's been interpreted on the ground. Let's count 1.

That makes 2.

NATO did not join the USA in Iraq.

Kosovo Force is a peacekeeping mission.

Ocean Shield was an anti-piracy mission.

Baltic Air Policing, following the Baltic states joining NATO in 2004, is practically a shared border patrol across these states.

Enhanced Forward Presence, since 2016 is a deterrence in response to Russia actions in 2014 in Crimea.

pydry1y ago

The orwellian/Putinesque thinking is evident here also. If you can excuse this you can excuse the invasion of Ukraine just as easily.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse