[qsort]

It's completely irrelevant that a promise was or wasn't made. NATO is a defensive alliance whose members join voluntarily, we don't go around planting flags with the Safari icon by right of conquest.

Hinting at a moral equivalence -- because let's be honest, that's what's happening here -- between Russian expansion and NATO "expansion" is at the very least intellectually dishonest.

[speeder]

As someone living in a country that had a democratic leader toppled down by NATO Aircraft carrier threatening to bomb our most populous city at the time... I disagree with you.

I am sure people in Iraq (that had nothing to do with 11 of September and had no mass destruction weapons), Libyan negros (that were hunted down and their city razed with NATO air support) and many, many others would agree with me.

It is not even a matter of blaming only USA that drags the rest of NATO with them, Libya for example the country that started the shenanigans was France.

Then there are the aggressive actions of individual NATO members that are ignored by the rest of the alliance, like Turkey bombing Armenians using drones until Russia stepped in.

[qsort]

What exactly are you disagreeing on?

There is no such thing as a "NATO Aircraft carrier". NATO is an alliance. NATO does not declare war as a block. Iraq was not a NATO operation. Libya was not a NATO operation.

The only time NATO has intervened outside of self defense as per Article V of the Charter was Yugoslavia (and with good fucking reason).

[scotty79]

So NATO members are still free to do what they want without casting any shade on NATO itself?

Could France just deploy it's army in the Ukraine and push out Russian occupiers saying "don't worry we are not NATO, we are here privately" and Russia would have to accept that and hold no additional grudge against NATO, knowing that if it retaliates it will trigger article 5?

I don't in any way condone what Russia is doing and I wish that invasion on Ukraine will safely end with NATO having a parade on Red Square and demilitarization of Russia.

I'm just arguing that you can't pretend that labels and formalities is all than counts when things start happening.

[dragonwriter]

> Could France just deploy it's army in the Ukraine and push out Russian occupiers saying "don't worry we are not NATO, we are here privately" and Russia would have to accept that and hold no additional grudge against NATO, knowing that if it retaliates it will trigger article 5?

Russia can hold all the grudges it likes, with or without any kind of justification.

Not that it matters to the international legitimacy of France (or even NATO, without Article 5 being triggered) directly militarily supporting Ukraine’s self-defense against Russian aggression, see UN Charter, Article 51.

[qsort]

> So NATO members are still free to do what they want without casting any shade on NATO itself?

I condemn the vast majority of the US foreign policy of the last 50+ years, I'm just pointing out that conflating US/NATO is a convenient parlor trick and irrelevant whataboutism.

> Could France

This scenario wouldn't trigger Article 5.

[dragonwriter]

> This scenario wouldn't trigger Article 5.

That... depends on the precise geographic location of any retaliation. The participation of a NATO state in a collective self-defense action with a non-NATO state under UN Charter Article 51 rights, outside of NATO operations, does not itself limit the applicability of Article 5.

And even if it didn't trigger Article 5, well, most NATO actions have been initiated as a result of Article 4 process, not Article 5 commitments. And an attack on a member’s forces in the Euro-Atlantic region but outside of the precise area covered by Article 5 commitments would arguably be a more serious Article 4 issue than the ones that have resulted in NATO interventions.

[scotty79]

> This scenario wouldn't trigger Article 5.

Really? Does it have to be unprovoked attack? And what exactly means unprovoked? Does having a peace mission in some neighbouring country and defending yourself there counts as provocation? Who decides that? And do you think that the definition that would be most geopolitically convenient at that moment wouldn't be chosen?

[qsort]

> Who decides that? And do you think that the definition that would be most geopolitically convenient at that moment wouldn't be chosen?

Oh absolutely it would.

The Charter is just a lot of verbiage around two promises: NATO members will defend each other, and NATO won't wage aggressive war.

If you are so inclined you can also doubt Article 5 itself: are we really going to unleash the apocalypse over Latvia? Wouldn't we be tempted to bend the rules in that case as well?

The point is whether you believe those promises to be credible. IMHO history implies they largely are, but that's something reasonable people can disagree on.

[speeder]

Right, so when Iraq was invaded by:

USA, UK, Australia, Poland, Netherlands, Italy and Spain (and Turkey threatened to invade in 2007 too), the fact they are all members of NATO is just coincidence, it is not NATO piling up on a single country.

Or Afghanistan:

US, UK, Canada, Germany, Australia, Italy, New Zealand

or Libya, france gave them weapons first, and invited the rest of NATO, that responded:

Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Denmark, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Romania, Spain, Turkey, USA, UK.

NATO can claim to be defensive and only about article 5, but the fact remains NATO will happily use their forces offensively and working in a cohesive group. You can't just say it isn't NATO because NATO is supposed to be defensive.

[dragonwriter]

> USA, UK, Australia, Poland, Netherlands, Italy and Spain (and Turkey threatened to invade in 2007 too), the fact they are all members of NATO is just coincidence, it is not NATO piling up on a single country.

Australia isn't a member of NATO (neither is New Zealand, which you claim at another point), and there were NATO members opposed to the invasion; NATO works by consensus, but isn't a supergovernment that dictates the outside-of-NATO foreign policy of its members.

> NATO can claim to be defensive and only about article 5

It could, but it actually doesn't.

It claims to be a regional security organization, and Article 4 is just as important as Article 5.

[BuckRogers]

If you know your history, you'd know that 9/11 triggered NATO's Article 5. It's the only time it was activated so far.

NATO kept us out of nuclear war for 70 years. It kept Soviet tanks from overrunning western Europe. It enabled stable democracies to gain a foothold safely in western Europe.

NATO is literally the only thing that stands between democratic states, which are the minority in the world (the North Atlantic region + some small states in Asia) and totalitarian regimes.

Mysteriously, a non-NATO nation is currently having a genocidal war waged on them. While NATO nations are free and safe. NATO is keeping the Free World safe.

If you hate freedom and representative government, if you find debates "too messy" and like easy-answer dictatorships, you should be anti-NATO.

[mongol]

Australia is not part of Nato. And you could equally well count in France and Germany as opposing the Iraq war, but it would not support your case.

[dragonwriter]

> Libya was not a NATO operation.

Are you sure?

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/71679.htm

[CapricornNoble]

>>>There is no such thing as a "NATO Aircraft carrier".

I just interpret that as "aircraft carrier belonging to a NATO member state".

>>>Iraq was not a NATO operation.

And yet there is very significant overlap of Multi-National Forces- Iraq countries with NATO member states: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-National_Force_%E2%80%93...

>>>Libya was not a NATO operation.

Have you taken a look at the Wiki article on that conflict? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_...

A couple of choice quotes: On 19 March 2011, a multi-state NATO-led coalition began a military intervention in Libya

24 March 2011: In telephone negotiations, French foreign minister Alain Juppé agreed to let NATO take over all military operations on 29 March at the latest

I'm always amazed at the number of emphatically stated positions regarding recent geopolitics/warfare/etc. that are so easily challenged with a 30-second internet search.

[qsort]

> I just interpret that as "aircraft carrier belonging to a NATO member state".

US != NATO

> very significant overlap

ah yes the overlap

> On 19 March 2011, a multi-state NATO-led coalition began a military intervention in Libya

You must have forgotten to paste the text after the comma, let us retry together:

On 19 March 2011, a multi-state NATO-led coalition began a military intervention in Libya, to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, in response to events during the First Libyan Civil War. With ten votes in favour and five abstentions, the UN Security Council's intent was to have "an immediate ceasefire in Libya, including an end to the current attacks against civilians, which it said might constitute “crimes against humanity” ... [imposing] a ban on all flights in the country's airspace — a no-fly zone — and tightened sanctions on the [Muammar] Qadhafi regime and its supporters.

I'm always amazed at the number of snarky know-it-all positions regarding recent geopolitics/warfare/etc. that are based on conveniently projecting away inconvenient pieces of information.

[femiagbabiaka]

Yes.. the U.S. is not NATO.. it just funds NATO more than any other member state, provides more troops to NATO than any other member state, provides arms more than any other member state, and NATO has never taken an action that works against the geopolitical interest of the U.S. But of course, they're completely separate entities. The Warsaw Pact was also famously not a mission by the SU, it was just a defensive treaty that happened to include them! A hegemon founding and funding a military alliance has no impact on that alliance, and all members of military alliances have equal rights under the treaty.

This is so much the case that until the invasion of Ukraine, France and other NATO members states were saying that Article 5 was effectively unenforceable for any member state save the U.S!

[jamie_ca]

> Yes.. the U.S. is not NATO.. it just funds NATO more than any other member state, provides more troops to NATO than any other member state, provides arms more than any other member state

They also have more of a population base than any other member state (4x Germany, 4.8x UK, 5x France...)

[mardifoufs]

The last part of your comment is pretty ironic. You realize that a UN resolution has absolutely nothing to do with NATO being a defensive alliance? It does not matter if they were "mandated" to attack a country that did not attack them first, it is still by definition agression. A defensive alliance would imply a reaction to an attack on your alliance, not on anything else.

If NATO only needs whatever vote it deems necessary to attack a completely uninvolved country because of a completely internal conflict, you realize that literally proves that it is not the type of neighbor you want to have?

What a completely self defeating argument lol. And that's ignoring the totally defensive strikes against serbia. Which for the record I personally think were justified, but supporting an intervention does not mean the intervention suddenly becomes defensive.

[epolanski]

All nato countries fought in iraq I think.

[VictorPath]

Operation Unified Protector in Libya was not a NATO operation? Huh? It was completely a NATO operation.

(I could tangent into Russia...)

[throw_5202]

> like Turkey bombing Armenians using drones until Russia stepped in

It was Azerbaijan using drones procured from Turkey: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war

Anyway NATO is not a single state. NATO members can make independent decisions other NATO members would disapprove.

[emptysongglass]

> Then there are the aggressive actions of individual NATO members that are ignored by the rest of the alliance, like Turkey bombing Armenians using drones until Russia stepped in.

Those countries are doing it under their own auspices. You seem to be confusing a defensive alliance with a federalized government.

> As someone living in a country that had a democratic leader toppled down by NATO Aircraft carrier threatening to bomb our most populous city at the time... I disagree with you.

You need to be explicit if you want to argue in good faith here.

[giraffe_lady]

> You need to be explicit if you want to argue in good faith here.

They absolutely do not. The military aggression of nato countries against weaker ones is well documented. They have killed, organized coups, waged war, and assassinated elected leaders for their own economic and political goals.

If you're going to argue that every single one of these was merely a country that happened to be part of nato, acting independently, then do it. It's not anyone's responsibility to lob you a specific case that you can try to shoot down on its specific details, and refusing to (proactively!?) do so does not indicate a bad faith argument come on.

[kodah]

NATO countries don't act in coordination. With respect to Iraq:

> On 5 February 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell appeared before the UN to present evidence that Iraq was hiding unconventional weapons. However, Powell's presentation included information based on the claims of Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi, codenamed "Curveball", an Iraqi emigrant living in Germany who later admitted that his claims had been false. Powell also presented evidence alleging Iraq had ties to al-Qaeda. As a follow-up to Powell's presentation, the United States, the United Kingdom, Poland, Italy, Australia, Denmark, Japan, and Spain proposed a resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq, but NATO members like Canada, France, and Germany, together with Russia, strongly urged continued diplomacy. Facing a losing vote as well as a likely veto from France and Russia, the US, the UK, Poland, Spain, Denmark, Italy, Japan, and Australia eventually withdrew their resolution.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War

> It's not anyone's responsibility to lob you a specific case that you can try to shoot down on its specific details, and refusing to (proactively!?) do so does not indicate a bad faith argument come on.

I think that depends on why you show up in forums. If your goal is to learn and grow by sharing experiences backed by data then I think it's important to be specific. If you just show up to "make your voice heard" or make grifting comments, then yeah it doesn't matter that much.

[emptysongglass]

A defensive alliance is what it says on the tin. If you want to take umbrage with the aggressions of any individual country, by all means do so. But don't turn NATO into your own personal bogeyman because one of its members did a thing you didn't like irrelevant to the mandate of the alliance. That's a bad faith argument.

If I make a promise that I won't punch you and you go punch someone else, that doesn't reflect on my promise not to punch you.

If that aircraft carrier was acting under NATO's auspices it is absolutely relevant to the argument. If it wasn't then it is a strawman and should be called out.

[kingofpandora]

What it says on the tin might not be what's inside.

[BuckRogers]

You didn't cite your sources in massive claims but yes it's disingenuous to apply individual nation's actions on NATO. NATO is a defensive alliance. They did go to war in the mideast after the US was attacked on 9/11, triggering Article 5.

As far as mideast wars in general, most of them, especially from the 60s to 90s, were proxy wars between democratic states and totalitarian regimes. Whether it be Iran or another one. The mideast is a powder keg in general though, I wouldn't use that region's history, or any party's involvement as a guide for much of anything in regards to your views.

It's amazing to see people on both the left and right oppose NATO. 63 Republicans voted against supporting NATO yesterday, which is just astonishing and short-sighted. That is not the GOP that I once supported, they are lost. NATO is what prevented nuclear war for 70 years. Protected Europe so it could thrive into the healthy democratic states they are today. Prevented Soviet tanks from rolling in.

Especially today, when a non-NATO nation is under attack, and would not be, if it were in NATO. The whole Trump and far left anti-NATO viewpoints were absolutely blown out of the water. It's not even a debate anymore. Western expansion was the correct move as the mask is now off of Putin's Russia.

If you hate free and sovereign states, and like dictators building empires and committing genocide to do it- being against NATO is for you. The story today is the Free World consisting of democratic states vs totalitarianism / authoritarianism / dictatorships. That includes Putin's right-wing government, and Xi's left wing Communist government.

[WastingMyTime89]

No one is hinting at moral equivalence. It’s just that the fact that modern Russia is an awful country waging a disgusting war on a neighbour which just wanted to be left alone doesn’t suddenly erase the history of the USA itself a trigger happy amoral and imperialist country with an history of furthering its own interests through acts of unspeakable violence abroad.

[soco]

Some people happily mistake NATO for USA because it makes for a more personal/persuasive/convenient argument.

[causi]

Indeed. Complaining about one lie from decades ago in view of the torrent of lies every day from the Russian government is like complaining about a grain of sand in an ocean of piss.

[DaltonCoffee]

Indeed. One teensy tiny little lie.

NATO expanding east is a legitimate concern to Russia, and it makes sense they would view it as a longstanding insidious aggression.

[scotty79]

No, it isn't a legitimate concern. Even if Russia bordered with only NATO countries it wouldn't mean they are in any danger of getting invaded. Because NATO doesn't invade.

NATO is only legitimate danger to the Russia interests in bordering countries like the one they are currently pursuing in the Ukraine, by commiting warcrimes among other things.

[DaltonCoffee]

How is NATO (and it's minimal expansions) not a concern to Russia again?

It's more complex now, but for awhile they were the two players at the game.

[amalter]

If this was the true concern of the Kremlin, why would they do the one thing that strengthens and enhances NATO in ways unthinkable even 6 months ago.

The war in Ukraine is the rebirth of NATO;

- Finland and Sweden on the fast path to joining. - Every member country making good on defense spending and more. - Eastern member countries inviting ever larger standing forces. - Renewed interest in Nuclear deterrents. - Reinforcement of other "NATO like" alliances like AUKUS.

If the true reason for the war was US-NATO provocation, the it was the most successful, long term, multi-administration conspiracy of the century.

Or - the Kremlin could simply be lying and have other ulterior motives for war (territory, hydrocarbons, empire, legacy, etc).

They are either stupid, or liars.

Fyiw - the only real "winners" here seem to be China.

[cuteboy19]

Because there are already 4 NATO countries bordering Russia.

[taylodl]

> NATO doesn't invade

But two prominent NATO member states, France and Germany, have famously invaded Russia. Another NATO member state, the United States, along with the UK spent the latter half of the 20th century waging a cold war against Russia. I'm a Cold War kid and a U.S. Marine to boot but damn! Russia definitely has legitimate reasons to be concerned with NATO expansion. I know, I know - we believe we're the good guys. The problem is Russia doesn't believe that and they have credible concerns we can't simply hand-wave away. Understanding that is important to making international politics work.

[scotty79]

> But two prominent NATO member states, France and Germany, have famously invaded Russia

What? When? Should we be holding modern organisations accountable for Napolenic wars? That's absolutely hilarious statement. So when's USA going to take the revenge against the Brits? I'd like to adjust my vacation plans accordingly.

On the other hand ... You being a marine explains a lot. Standards of US military industrial complex to what country has the right to have as legitimate interest and horrifying.

It's not about being good guys or bad guys. It's about not poking your nose in the stuff of people who live outside of your borders without a firm invitation from global community.

[giraffe_lady]

Nato doesn't invade?? Do you think there is a difference for the people living there whether the bombs come from an official nato action, or from a country acting alone with the tacit approval or explicit support of other nato countries?

This feels sorta how in the US only congress can declare war, so we don't declare war anymore. These technical distinctions may be compelling to you but they don't put people's legs back on, they don't pull children out of the grave.

Nato countries acting together with the support of other nato countries do invade. Call that what you want I call it nato invading.

[scotty79]

Which country any NATO member attacked, occupied and annexed? Because that's what Russia does when it invades (like with Crimea).

Let's keep the same meaning of the word 'invade' when we talk about Russia and NATO.

[BuckRogers]

Another guy suggesting that now-justified western expansion of a defensive pact warrants this genocidal war on Ukraine. Just amazing. NATO = not invaded. Not NATO? Complete destruction.

It didn't even warrant an invasion of Ukraine. Let alone this. Have you read the news? It's not fake. It's all very real-

Russia denies and deflects in reaction to atrocities...

Town by town, prosecutors build war crimes cases...

Zelensky briefs UN on massacres...

Swastika scratched on corpse... Soldiers cut out tongues...

15-year-old raped with mother...

[dragonwriter]

> NATO expanding east is a legitimate concern to Russia

A supposed commitment of NATO not to expand eastward wasn't a concern when they were demanding to be immediately admitted without having to meet readiness milestones like other states in Eastern Europe under President (checks) Putin.

[femiagbabiaka]

This is a pretty naive view of the reality of NATO. In reality NATO is from its founding a U.S. lead mission that was created to suppress what was then the Soviet Union. This is explicitly stated by the first heads of NATO. To achieve that purpose the U.S. has done all sorts of nefarious things from recruiting former Nazi generals to invading and regime changing countries. Taking the propaganda of any world power as truth is a mistake, and I’m surprised about how many people on HN seem to be doing it. Learning about the history of NATO is the bare minimum that should be done before claiming to educate others about it.

[colpabar]

Can you recommend some good sources on NATO's history? Ideally sources that won't show up on the first page of google please.

[femiagbabiaka]

If I had to pick one, I would recommend the recent series by podcast TrueAnon on NATO. It's up to date and timely -- they discuss the context of Ukraine for example. Caveats are that it can be irreverent at times (if you can't tell by the name heh) and it has a severe left-wing tilt, although not to a delusional degree in my opinion. It's well sourced, and will give you the knowledge to follow up with your own research in those places you are skeptical.

[tptacek]

Getting analysis of Ukraine from Mark Ames is like getting analysis of Sandy Hook from Alex Jones. There are credible people with a skeptical take on the Ukraine situation --- Mearsheimer is a good example. TrueAnon is not.

[femiagbabiaka]

TrueAnon has Mark Ames on often -- well, twice, at least, but he is not a core member of the podcast, and was not featured on these episodes.

EDIT: I do agree that Mearsheimer is another good person to learn from, but I don't know of an article or video from him that takes a holistic view at things

[vkou]

NATO is just a mainly defensive alliance. So far, it has fought exactly zero defensive wars, but a number of offensive ones. I assume that means that the defensive part of it is working really, really well - nobody seems keen on attacking it.

The problem here is that both sides are in the wrong, but for different reasons. NATO expanding eastwards is scary and destabilizing to everyone in the world. Putin, meanwhile, is behaving like an utter savage, and is also scary and destabilizing, to both his immediate neighbours, and also to everyone in the world. Ukraine got burnt, badly from both directions - one pushed it under the bus, the other is in the middle of invading it.

Are these the same level of wrongs? No. Does one excuse the other? Also no. Would I prefer everyone involved to have stopped escalating this, starting two decades ago? Yes. Did poor judgement in the past severely constrict our ability to reach better outcomes in the present? Also yes.

Remember 9/11, and how poor ME policy lead to it? Remember what was in the short term, a reasonable response, in the long run resulted in self-inflicted damage that was orders of magnitude worse?

NATO moving east may well be that short term win. We will see whether the long-term losers will be limited to former Soviet republics.

[scotty79]

> The problem here is that both sides are in the wrong, but for different reasons. NATO expanding eastwards is scary and destabilizing to everyone in the world.

I can't imagine how scary it would be for Polish people right now if we weren't in NATO, because Russians practiaclly mention us along with Ukraine on a single breath.

It was called a Warsaw pact. Warsaw is Polish capital.

[vkou]

But that's the problem. Would Russia has gone on a saber-rattling course, starting in '08, had NATO not gone eastwards?

We can't know, it's alt-history speculative wankery. But what we can know is that the latter left the former with very few options.

[qsort]

We can't know that hadn't Poland joined NATO Russia wouldn't have invaded Ukraine but we can definitively know that Poland joining NATO is certainly the cause of this war?

You have very interesting priors, I must say.

[scotty79]

> Would Russia has gone on a saber-rattling course, starting in '08, had NATO not gone eastwards?

Yes. Reestablising soviet empire was Putins life long project from the moment he gained significant power. Vibes of it are easy enough to notice in his speeches predating '08

Those are not words of a man in fear. Those are the words of a man with a dream.

[vkou]

> Vibes of it are easy enough to notice in his speeches predating '08

NATO went east in 1999, which was before Putin. '08 was when the war in Georgia took place.

[dragonwriter]

> NATO went east in 1999, which was before Putin.

You might want to look up who Russia’s head of government (not chief of state) was in 1999.

Though, on the other hand, the process of NATO expansion into the former Iron Curtain (beyond German unification) actually started in 1991, almost immediately after the fall of the USSR, with requests from a number of ex-Warsaw Pact, including ex-Soviet, republics for an onramp to NATO (including, it might be noted, the Russian Federation, which was also one of the initial members, in 1994, of the NATO-onramp Partnership for Peace program. Which is among the very many reasons that the recent debate about a supposed 1989 commitment to not expand NATO into former Warsaw Pact territory is nonsense: even if such an informal non-treaty assurance was binding, and inherited from the USSR by Russia, Russia’s subsequent active and formal participation in the NATO expansion process would have repudiated it, in any case.)

[AnimalMuppet]

> NATO expanding eastwards is scary and destabilizing to everyone in the world.

I call BS on that one. Just for an extreme example, take Uruguay. How is NATO expansion eastward scary or destabilizing for them?

Or take Estonia. Is NATO expansion destabilizing for them? Or is it stabilizing? I claim it is the latter; it keeps Russia from coming back.

Was it destabilizing for Ukraine? Insufficient data. If NATO had never gone past united Germany, would Russia have invaded Ukraine? Maybe. Would it have been this bloody? Maybe not. It might have been like the Russian interventions is Belarus and Kazakhstan. Is it better, or worse to be under their heel for the next N decades, but initially have fewer dead bodies?

[vkou]

> How is NATO expansion eastward scary or destabilizing for them?

It's scary and destabilizing in the sense that Uruguay doesn't really give a rat's ass about where the borders between east and west are drawn in Europe, but would really, really, really prefer that NATO and Russia don't get into a shooting war.

Same thing with threats to the MAD balance of power, like anti-missile defenses. Anyone standing on the sidelines doesn't really care about where the borders are, they just don't want one side to scare the other to the point of nuclear war.

[dragonwriter]

> NATO is just a mainly defensive alliance. So far, it has fought exactly zero defensive wars

1 in direct mutual self-defense, actually.

> but a number of offensive ones

NATO has conducted, I believe, two operations that were neither mutual self-defense under Article 5 nor at the invitation of the government in whose territory they were conducted nor under a direct call for military forces by the UN Security Council under its notionally-compulsory authority regarding matters of international peace and security, the operation in Libya (which was to enforce Security Council resolutions, but not itself in response for a call by the Council for armed force) and that in response to the Kosovo situation.

[soco]

It's scary and destabilizing to Russia, that is. I mean a country so scared and destabilized that it just invaded a neighboring country. I can't recall right now anyone else bothered by the expansion. Is there any other "everyone in the world" you care to mention?

[VictorPath]

> NATO is a defensive alliance

Like bombing Libya?

(there is more about Russia vis-a-vis Libya but no need for me to Tangent into that)

[taylodl]

> It's completely irrelevant that a promise was or wasn't made.

That's true if your word means nothing and you have no honor. NATO is in control of their expansion, yes, the members join voluntarily but the existing members have to approve the new membership. NATO can't claim it has no control of its expansion.

Now does any of this mean that Putin is justified in committing war crimes? No, of course not. But it is relevant that the West can't be trusted to keep their word. That makes negotiating a peaceful resolution to this conflict more difficult. It also provides our detractors plenty with which to create a credible alternate telling of the facts.