[mtgx]

It's not a invalid point per se, but I think everyone knows NATO's recent moves against Russia are a direct consequence of Russia invading and annexing Crimea.

It probably won't end well if everyone decides to "one-up" each other, though, similar to how WW1 started.

[rovek]

> invading and annexing Crimea

This is one of few times I've seen "invade" used to describe Russia's actions in Crimea. I find it strange that even western media talks about "annexation" when they usually employ exaggerated terminology for all kinds of trivial events.

edit: I'm not saying the invasion was trivial, I'm saying the media response was/is understated compared to non-events they exaggerate

[gandhium]

Well, at least media don't play the Russian-proposed "we were heroic defenders" tune, like it was with Georgia in 2008.

[ionised]

Wasn't NATO putting missile bases/defences in Turkey long before all this though?

Russia saw that as a provocation and a breach of previous agreements.

[d1ffuz0r]

try digging deeper, like ready history of NATO from 90s til current days. you will find something new for yourself

[the_gastropod]

Ambiguous "read history" statements aren't helpful. If you have a point, we'd love to read it.