[KerrAvon]

No, we don't forget about revisionist history. We view it with an appropriately skeptical eye.

The Telegraph article has a quote from a historian:

> "There was no mention of this in any of the three contemporaneous diaries, two British and one French - including that of Drax," he said. "I don't myself believe the Russians were serious."

You also seem unfamiliar with the purpose of NATO. Wikipedia:

> NATO is a system of collective security: its independent member states agree to defend each other against attacks by third parties. It was established during the Cold War in response to the threat posed by the Soviet Union.

[LAC-Tech]

You also seem unfamiliar with the purpose of NATO. Wikipedia:

> NATO is a system of collective security: its independent member states agree to defend each other against attacks by third parties. It was established during the Cold War in response to the threat posed by the Soviet Union.

That is the stated purpose of NATO. The details of its real life military actions do not square with what you quoted at all - unless you can tell me which NATO member state Libya attacked.

[mlindner]

The Libyan conflict was several countries working together and stuck a NATO label on it. Most of NATO was not actually involved. It also included some countries outside of NATO, like Sweden.

You can blame it on France misusing the NATO moniker rather than it just being a coalition.

[SemanticStrengh]

> "I don't myself believe the Russians were serious."

Oh so it was a prank? - - What a weak thesis...

> You also seem unfamiliar with the purpose of NATO. Wikipedia

You seem unfamiliar with the fact the USSR asked to join NATO it seems

[watwut]

And NATO rightfully said no, because of what kind of country Russia was.

Also, politicians, including and especially Russian politicians at the time having unserious claims is not weak thesis. That was their frequent negotiating/pressuring/rhetorical tactic.