Yes, he really said it
Yes, he really said it
You're viewing a single thread.
I am sympathetic to the argument that NATO expansion and the coup started this war.
But blaming Ukraine is absurd. They're the victims of NATO expansion and the coup!
This argument doesn't make sense. Even if you do accept that NATO is not purely defensive because of what happened in Libya, blaming NATO for Russia invading another country that isn't in NATO makes as much sense as me blaming my brother John for the fact that my other brother Robert was beating his wife, and then violently taking it out on John.
And that's ignoring the reason NATO is expanding. It expands when new countries decide they want to join it. And countries at present are wanting to join it because they feel threatened by Russia. The reason for its expansion is Russia's aggression, so to turn back and blame NATO for Russia's aggression is completely backwards.
Invading another country that was pivoting towards joining NATO because of a Western backed coup. You're leaving that part out.
I wonder why countries bordering Russia want to join NATO
After what NATO did to Libya you might wonder why Russia doesn't trust NATO.
NATO didn't intervene in Lybia, it were just some NATO aligned countries.
If NATO did intervene, it would have included ALL NATO countries. As is the point of their pact. If one is at war, they all combine forces.
Since plenty of NATO countries abstained, it is therefore no NATO intervention.
But you rather spew Russian disinformation, don't you?
Not sure who asked them to.
And how did it turn out?
How did what turn out?
NATO's intervention in Libya? Things haven't been great for them, if you haven't noticed.
What does NATO's intervention in Libya have to do with countries bordering Russia wanting to join NATO?
NATO intervention in Libya was not defensive, which means NATO is a security threat. Surely you see that?
Nato expansion has always sounded dumb to me too. Nato is a defense pact, it doesn't ever attack so there is nothing for Russia to defend against. And if some countries were to attack Russia, them being in Nato is irrelevant since the other members won't help.
Russia is the only European country that violates others borders. Everyone else agreed that wars are dumb and joined a peaceful union called the 'EU' or at least has close ties with it. Now Russia of course could have joined the EU too, but Putin chose not to.
Nato is a defense pact, it doesn’t ever attack
NATO bombed Libya.
NATO didn’t intervene in Lybia, it were just some NATO aligned countries.
If NATO did intervene, it would have included ALL NATO countries. As is the point of their pact. If one is at war, they all combine forces.
Since plenty of NATO countries abstained, it is therefore no NATO intervention.
It started as some NATO member countries on the 19th of March. My understanding is that NATO later voted on it to become fully involved by the 24th and took over by the 31st. That's how NATO works - when a few members get involved, everyone else will follow.
Let's imagine a few NATO member countries start bombing Russia. If Russia strikes back, the NATO pact means that all of NATO becomes involved. That necessarily means that if any NATO member country is involved, all of NATO is involved. NATO is basically a shield for NATO member countries to do whatever they want, because if anyone fights back it triggers the whole alliance.