[pydry]

He was entirely right about that too.

NATO is an aggressive alliance that has exclusively invaded three countries in the last 20 years, zero of whom were threat to it.

The worst one was probably Libya, because NATO pretended to engage in a humanitarian mission to gain approval from the security council and then left the country utterly destroyed state afterwards. The country was shredded.

It's a tool of western imperialism that dangles the false promise of protection. In this respect it operates with the same logic as a gang recruiting teenagers before using them as cannon fodder.

Of course you can't say these things in polite company just as I couldn't say that WMDs were a complete load of bullshit in 2003 without being verbally attacked.

In 20 years time it will be seen as obvious, however.

[_djo_]

The invasion of Libya was fully authorised by the UNSC, and it was not conducted or approved solely by NATO. Libya was also already in a highly destructive civil war before the intervention, which is why it happened, so it’s not like they went in and destabilised a stable country. Gaddafi had built Libya’s security around himself in a cult of personality, things were always going to fall apart once his power waned.

Which other countries did NATO invade?

[jcranmer]

The other NATO interventions:

* Intervention in the violent breakup of Yugoslavia, invited to do so by the UN in response to the genocide going on there.

* Invasion of Afghanistan, following the invocation of Article 5 after an attack on a NATO country (i.e., 9/11).

[_djo_]

> * Intervention in the violent breakup of Yugoslavia, invited to do so by the UN in response to the genocide going on there.

Indeed. So not an aggressive invasion but a humanitarian intervention.

> * Invasion of Afghanistan, following the invocation of Article 5 after an attack on a NATO country (i.e., 9/11).

Not quite. Technically speaking, neither of the official NATO missions in Afghanistan, ISAF and Resolute Support, were Article 5 missions.

When the US triggered Article 5 in October 2001 it explicitly did not request a full NATO response, but initially only for support such as NATO AWACS aircraft in US airspace. When it invaded Afghanistan, which was entirely justified in international law as an act of self defence, a handful of NATO countries opted to send support contingents, like SOF, as a way of showing solidarity. But it was not a NATO mission under NATO command: Operation Enduring Freedom was American-led and commanded from the beginning. At best you can say several NATO allies invaded. Later, NATO launched ISAF and Resolute Support and became more involved as an organisation deploying forces, but that was post-invasion.

[pydry]

The invasion of Afghanistan was as much self defence as the invasion of Ukraine. Probably less, actually.

The idea that it was any kind of self defence is kind of pathetic, and mirrors Putinesque propaganda. It was occupation pure and simple.

America really wanted to set up military bases there. It was a black spot in the world which it lacked imperial force projection and it was right between 3 major rivals (Russia, China and Iran).

[_djo_]

In what sense was it not self defence under international law?

[pydry]

Afghanistan did not knock down the twin towers. It actually offered to hand over bin Laden if the US provided evidence of his involvement and tried him in a neutral country.

That wasn't good enough for the US, who were itching for a military invasion anyway, and were keen to build some military bases in a spot where they didnt yet have any.

The idea that the US follows international law is a sick joke. The idea that the country that created the Hague invasion act has nonzero respect for international law is laughable.

[pydry]

>The invasion of Libya was fully authorised by the UNSC,

Yes as I pointed out.

As I pointed out that made it worse because they lied to the security. They simply wanted to take sides in a civil war.

Did you read what I wrote at all?

[M2Ys4U]

NATO's intervention in Kosovo is the one that routinely cited.

That wasn't defensive by any means, but that also doesn't make it unjustified nor should it really be called "aggressive".

Chomsky, naturally, denied that ethnic cleansing was happening there because it wasn't the US or "western" countries doing it.

[_djo_]

Agreed, Kosovo is the only actual NATO intervention of that sort. And agreed that it was neither unjustified nor ‘aggressive’.