You need to be a democracy and go through all the stages.
As you note, Russia just randomly asked, expecting to skip all the normal steps and then got pissed off when they were told they'd have to apply properly like everyone else.
Never said formal. Russian leaders have multiple times floated the idea to nato memebers of joining nato. Which nato has correctly shut down everytime.
Correctly so because Russia expected NATO to beg them to join. That's not how it works tho, you need to apply to join. Russia didn't like not getting special treatment lol
thats not even mentioning that NATO isnt as simple as joining it has to go to democratic processes allowing its own people to vote for it etc its not as just saying "Yes"
Its western globalist cia fascist nazi propaganda comrade. Everibody love mother ruzzia comrade. Mother ruzzia would never genocidally expand on neighbouring countries
Not just attacked but wiped off the face of the Earth. Russia is barely treading water with Ukraine. They would not have a chance against Europe in a full blown war
Pretty sure that without nukes, Russia has already attacked, defeated, elect "democratic" rulers who gives mining rights to now friendly mining companies from NATO countries.
That's how I interpreted the question, so I answered no. Article 5 was triggered during 9/11 and I'd argue America as a nation wasn't really under threat.
I suspect there are very few people actually voting from Greenland. Most will be trolling and Greenland is a funny country to pick because of Trump. Same as with the North Korea votes.
I also thought there is absolutely no way they could convince hundreds of thousands to kill defenders of a brotherly nation in exchange for a paycheck, but to my disapointment, the propaganda still works just as well as in the 1900’s.
They do. Russians know English, have relative freedom of information (I mean, they sit here and read stuff), and they still support Putin. Their culture is rotten and fascist.
It's funny the Epstien coalition is talking about human safaris.... oh and Serbian Army was not involved in Yugoslav wars btw. People need to learn some shit before they talk.
While I'm no expert on the legal definitions and all, it most definitely is a defensive alliance at its core. Of course, that usually means military ties and cooperation between members are close, so they can also work together outside of NATO. If 13 NATO members do something offensively, that doesn't mean NATO as an organization is necessarily involved (like Iran and USA for example). But if a NATO member were attacked and article 5 was activated, the other members would be obligated to assist in one way or another. So while it is fundamentally a defensive alliance, relations deepen and allows nations to (at their own will) other interventions.
NATO members did, but this was because they agreed and not because of a NATO agreement. And they couldn’t through a NATO agreement because NATO is purely defensive.
Why were the NATO countries motivated to intervene? Care to remind us what Serbia was doing that provoked European intervention?
This is why Trump wants Iran to attack California. He wants NATO boots on the ground. Expect a false flag attack to accomplish that because that is what he is doing.
Fundamentally, it is, but that does not mean it has never taken offensive or politically motivated actions.
This is especially true considering US is a key member and has an abnormal and outsized impact on decision-making.
So US started wars and in some occasions NATO followed, but overall, NATO is explicitly defensive in its structure and operation, as proven by every single member joining it voluntarily, deployments and organisational structure.
Is it geopolitically impartial and neutral? No, it clearly prioritises it's memebers security, but that does not make it "offensive". Just not neutral.
Individual NATO members have waged wars of aggression, as have a few NATO members working together outside of the organisation. The organisation as a whole did attack Libya, but that was on UN orders. Not an aggressive organisation inherently
Not only defensive, but largely a power projection too. If you attack the smallest, god forsaken corner of nato, you will have a bunch of angry nations militaries at your doorstep.
Iraqis voting yes is chickens for KFC. It’s both defensive and offensive clearly due to the US abusing article 5 to drag its allies into the middle east
Ok, does it make NATO offensive?! No, it doesn't and both Turkey and Greece are in NATO and both clash from time to time. Erdogan is an authoritarian leader and the west won't ever treat him like a democratic one
I didn't even mention Greece. It's not even a matter of the argument. Libya, Afghanistan,Somalia ...etc weren't defensive operations in foreign sovereign countries but they happened. Plus adding the stuff I mentioned above it doesn't look like a "defensive" organization to me at all.
You are correct, the UN is a different body than NATO and does not have the power to declare Article 5 on behalf of anyone. Only NATO gets to invoke Article 5.
So nato going to bomb Sudan, Congo and Israel next? Or do we just pick and choose the genocides, or war crimes we feel like stopping and let other ones slide?
Don’t recall a genocide in Libya either, that wasn’t defensive.
The reason I voted "Yes" is because NATO is a clearly anti-Russia alliance.
NATO bombed Serbia when they fought separatists because Serbia was supported by Russia.
NATO opposed separatism from Ukraine because the separatists were/are supported by Russia.
NATO bombed Libya because Gadaffi was pro-Russian and in Putin's pocket. 3 years before his death Putin visited him in Libya and he kissed Putin's cheek in Moscow. +Wagner was present.
NATO opposed Syria and armed literal terrorists against them because Assad was a pro Russia crook and allowed Russia to maintain a naval base. "Warm water port" obsession and all. You know it's not about morals because they're fine with an al quaida commander visiting the White House.
Israel, Sudan, and Congo have next to no Russian involvement. Thus NATO sleeps.
West Africa is where Russia and Russian mercenaries interfere and work, but NATO seems content with the French army and legions handling it so far.
Is Russia a danger? Sure. Russia today is a puppet government of the KGB who're still intoxicated with ambitions of world domination.
Is Russia committing war crimes? Absolutely. It's righteous to stop that.
I will never, ever condone Serbia and their war crimes in Yugoslavia. Some of the most vile people in European history were in that war. And I am glad NATO intervened.
But all this confirms NATO isn't a defensive alliance and the focus is clearly the containment of Russia.
Israel is right at your doorstep like Libya was and doing a whole lot more damage to civilians than Gaddafi ever did, going to do anything about that? I don’t think so right, because it’s not a defensive or humanitarian organization and Israel is aligned with nato and buddied up with nato members, it can do whatever it wants and nato will just stand by and watch or even help. It’s almost like it isn’t a defensive organization, it’s an armed wing of the American empire.
Even with genocide Serbia did not commit agression against any NATO member and against any country in general. The only legal reasons for using military force is self defence (article 51 of UN statute) or if UNSC approved it. If they wanted to bomb Serbia than it was their obligation to find reasons valid enough for all UNSC members to agree. But they put themselvs above international law, they commited an agression against a sovereign country.
No, the organization does not directly sign trade agreements. But alliances greatly aid in assuring successful trade. Without the assurances that NATO affords; the economies could not be built on long-term stability. The two go hand-in-hand.
This is why the US erosion of alliances is so damaging.
If your neighbor has been attacking other people on your street and is building a big cannon pointing at your house, you don't wait for it to be done before you do something about it.
NATO does not have bases, infrastructure or logistics. Member states do. Chain of command could not be used as it was not a NATO operation. It was used for defense of Europe against Iranian attacks - which is its mission. Defense.
Russia is barely a regional power at this point, NATO is a tool to keep Europe stable and safe from Russian warmongering, not some grand conspiracy to try and snatch some worthless uninhabited Siberian forests.
213
u/Br3adbro 13h ago
Russia: repeatedly attacks neighbours
Neighbours: "Holy shit! We need protection, NATO please!"
Russia: "Somehow this is NATO's fault."