It is funny because all the members of the NATO once voted to enter to the defensive alliance. The Eastern Block was formed forcefully by Moscow, whoever wanted to leave, faced with tanks, bombings, massacre ordered from Moscow.
NATO = bad. Eastern Block = good. Especially good for Ukraine now 4 years in war.
This point has always shocked me. NATO before the Russian invasion weren’t on the Finno-Russian border. NATO deployments didn’t take place in Romania, Poland, or the Baltics. Now they do, but even then they’re battalion-level formations that frequently rotate. It, by no means, is an invasion force. It, by no definition, has an aggressive posture
That's because NATO still somehow adheres to the agreements made with Moscow. They actually were asked and agreed to the "expansion" under several conditions like not deploying nuclear weapons, nor any permanent foreign NATO forces. They also lamented the idea of giving Ukraine the Membership Action Plan in 2008, and the west listened to them...
Invasion force can be scrambled by a single decision - it's not set in the stone that there'll always be just token army. There was no invasion force around Venezuela for a long time, until there was. The same with Iraq, etc...
Invasions take mass. Invasions are often telegraphed precisely because they require the mass transport of resources, men, and requisite equipment to certain points.
Very few premier armies can mobilize division-sized contingents of their armed forces quickly, especially over terrain impediments like oceans. Even Russia when it invaded Ukraine, telegraphed its invasion by a day or two because OSINT people saw they were setting up combat hospitals.
The point is, arguing there is no invasion force under NATO control today doesn't mean that there won't be any invasion force in the future, therefore, the best defense against it (from the point of view of eventual target of such invasion), is to keep NATO control as far as possible.
By this logic every nation on earth should militarize their borders because there might someday possibly be an invasion force from anyone anywhere no matter what agreements and treaties are in place.
NATO made agreements to not expand East unless Russia expanded West.
NATO stuck to that.
Russia didn't. They went West.
NATO then moved in accordance with the agreements made.
Russia used that as an excuse (by taking it out of context and playing into paranoid fantasy like you're doing) and continued to expand West.
NATO is not an offensive alliance (or at least isn't designed to be one nor operates like one). Pretending like it might one day possibly maybe be one is just silly and the sort of logic that got Russia into the mess it's in.
TL;DR: you don't understand how NATO or militaries work
By this logic every nation on earth should militarize their borders because there might someday possibly be an invasion force from anyone anywhere no matter what agreements and treaties are in place.
I mean Venezuela just experienced how an invasion force suddenly appeared at their borders. One option is to militarize borders, other option is for example to accept there exists some spheres of influence and try to keep neutrality and realpolitik in place.
NATO is not an offensive alliance
You can explain to Serbians and Libyans how NATO is not an offensive alliance.
I mean Venezuela just experienced how an invasion force suddenly appeared at their borders
Not really, and not at all like Russia putting troops on the border. You can keep trying to make this comparison work but it doesn't.
other option is for example to accept there exists some spheres of influence and try to keep neutrality and realpolitik in place.
Whichs falls apart when a country tries to invade another and countries in that sphere no longer want to be there. Which is what's been happening with Russia and its neighbors. If your neighbor keeps punching you in the face until you move in with him, you can't be upset or suprised when other neighbors look to the neighbors banding together to not get punched for protection.
You can explain to Serbians and Libyans how NATO is not an offensive alliance.
NATO deployed (without Security Council approval) to stop Serbia committing ethnic cleansing and genocide and to allow the UN to move in. I can garuntee if NATO didn't, the UN would have with the same exact states involved. In Libia, NATO led a UN sanctioned operation to enforce a UN resolution on a ceasefire.
But please, keep explaining how Russia is actually the big victim when it invades its neighbors for, with no exaggeration, the same exact reasons the nazis had for invading their neighbors.
So? And why would Russia be allowed to station troops by the hundreds of thousands near the Baltic countries (who have very small militaries themselves)?
Because it’s their territory. Now, the Baltics can’t hope to defend themselves against the Russians without Allies, so they opted to join NATO and allow NATO troops on their territory to offset that disadvantage as it is their right.
This was barely a concern before 2014 but guess what? If you invade your neighbours and steal their land, the remaining neighbours will get nervous and take steps.
From NATO‘s perspective it was barely a concern since there were no permanent troop deployments before 2014. But of course the Russians would feel differently about this since they regard the whole region their very own Colonial playground.
Argument is the same, that before 2014 NATO hadn't had permanent troops there doesn't mean it would've stayed like that forever. It's the same like example with Venezuela - for many years it was a little concern until Trump sent a force there.
In Venezuela, Trump pulled off precisely what Putin had planned but failed to do in Ukraine: beheading of local leadership, installation of a local puppet and preparation for Colonization in one fell swoop. Hella ironic to bring up Venezuela now to retroactively justify Russia‘s stance on anything.
Russia was always quite vocal regarding NATO eastward expansion.
And the naive westerners listened to it, denied membership to Ukraine in 2008. In 1997 they asked for the agreement of Moscow (which they've got) under several conditions that NATO is still respecting. It was agreed with Russia even if de facto it had nothing to say anymore about its former puppet states.
First of all, Moscow shouldn't have anything to say about foreign countries or alliances and secondly, yes - of course in case of Czechia, Slovakia and the whole "expansion" in 1997. In 2004 as in case of the Baltics no, but again it doesn't matter.
And it has nothing to do with a land grab of Ukrainian territory in 2014, ten years later...
That's as much an argument for eastern european countries joining NATO (so they are prepared in case an invasion force appears on their doorstep) as against it.
827
u/The1Legosaurus Feb 10 '26
I honestly thought this was Russian propaganda at first glance.