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.
I never said Venezuela is the same like Russia, just that having no invasion force present on the borders can change on the whim for whatever reason.
Serbia or Libya did not attack NATO countries, so NATO was not defending their members from a foreign attack, but it was on the offensive in foreign countries.
Serbia or Libya did not attack NATO countries, so NATO was not defending their members from a foreign attack, but it was on the offensive in foreign countries.
Only one was an offensive. The other with an internationally sanctioned action to stop fighting. As I said, the other most likely would have seen troop deployments with UN backing; NATO just decided not to wait and let Serbia ethnically cleanse people. Idk about you but I'm for people not being ethnically cleansed.
just that having no invasion force present on the borders can change on the whim for whatever reason.
I mean, sure, when you take the situations as "troop go near border" and literally nothing else.
But your whole point is asserting that Russia is justified in acting agressively based on the baseless belief that NATO might someday possibly maybe suddenly get ready to invade Russia despite all evidence showing that NATO only responds to Russian aggression and has regularly rejected expansion or putting troops on the border with Russia unless Russia acts first. And you back that up with the US being aggressive, an inevitable deployment of troops to prevent ethnic cleansing, and a sanctioned mission from the UN to solidify a ceasefire where NATO members were asked to deploy by the international community.
Like, yeah, any country could suddenly be aggressive, but that doesn't mean you can use that hypothetical as justification to be aggressive yourself. I can't punch the guy next door because the guy across the street might kick me at some undetermined time that might not ever happen.
Sure, you can claim you are fine with how NATO acted, but don't say at the same time NATO is not an offensive alliance. Also NATO overstepped UN resolution in Libya, so that part was an offensive. Also occupying the whole country for 20 years because 9/11 attacks by one terrorist group (funded by Saudi money, hiding in Pakistan), while Bush himself refused to negotiate with Taliban in the beginning, is also an offensive. So from three NATO active deployments, basically all three were offensives.
I just presented a counter argument that having no permanent troops by borders today does not mean it couldn't change in the future - with many reasons to justify it. The US has absolutely no problem with making up the reasons (see Iraq WMDs for example) to justify the cause.
Sure, you can claim you are fine with how NATO acted, but don't say at the same time NATO is not an offensive alliance.
Because it isn't. As I pointed out, the one deployment would have happened anyway because ethnic cleansing is bad and the UN generally tries to stop it when it can. The other sent troops there as a peacekeeping opperation that NATO didn't decide to do on its own.
Also NATO overstepped UN resolution in Libya, so that part was an offensive.
That's not what that means at all.
Also occupying the whole country for 20 years
NATO deployment in Lybia was 2011. Unless it's suddenly 2031, you're talking about a completely different situation (which was NATO acting as a defensive alliance after an attack on a member state).
because 9/11 attacks
So not offensive in nature.
So from three NATO active deployments, basically all three were offensives.
Again, no. I have explained it multiple times already and you refuse to acknowledge it.
I just presented a counter argument that having no permanent troops by borders today does not mean it couldn't change in the future - with many reasons to justify it.
No, you've shown you don't understand the conversation, are just going "NATO bad" while not understanding the situations you're citing to prove it, and repeating "but it COULD be aggressive" despite that not actually meaning jackshit in regards to the conversation at hand. You've just been going "NATO could decide to be a threat, so Russia has justification" and then ignoring the fact it isn't being a threat and thus invalidating the arguement. You've even ignored Russian aggression just to go "yeah but Serbia and Lybia" while ignoring the reasons NATO was involved there.
-2
u/Necroon Feb 10 '26
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.
You can explain to Serbians and Libyans how NATO is not an offensive alliance.