4 ms·

> Now on the one hand, NATO is a purely defensive alliance The author doesn't get it

skrebbel 5y ago
Yeah this part disappointed me too, as NATO done things in the past that I struggle to explain as "purely defense" (eg Serbia, Libya). I still think the article holds true, but I think the author should've been more nuanced here because Putin apologists are going to use this mistake to undermine the whole article.
bspammer 5y ago
No one in the west wants to invade Russia. Everyone wants to not be invaded by Russia. That sounds pretty defensive to me.
- ailef 5y ago
  Yes, if we only consider definitions and ignore NATO actions for the past 50 years.
  - yardstick 5y ago
    (Serious question) What have they done in the last 50 years to make you think they would invade Russia?
    - ailef 5y ago
      I was contesting the definition of NATO being a "purely defensive alliance", as is often described also here on HN. For example, NATO intervention in Serbia can hardly considered defensive.
      - dgregd 5y ago
        Serbia is not a part of Russia. It wasn't even in Soviet Union. Yugoslavia was an independent country.
        ailef 5y ago
        What's your point? The claim that NATO cannot attack Russia is often justified by the fact that "NATO is a defensive alliance". Previous events show that actions by NATO in the recent past do not reflect this definition, so this line of reasoning is invalid. The other line of reasoning on why NATO would not attack Russia is that it would trigger MAD. And while this is a really sad state of affairs, I believe this to be more credible rather than lies about NATO being "purely defensive".
      - mdp2021 5y ago
        > NATO intervention in Serbia To just watch genocide being carried on "in your backyard" is considered not moral, and it is "defensive" in more than one way.
        mort96 5y ago
        I completely disagree. If sovereign nation A invades sovereign nation B, while under no threat from sovereign nation B, that by itself is enough to qualify as offensive IMO. You could argue (and I'd maybe agree) that it's a justified offensive action, maybe even morally necessary, but it's not defensive.
        ailef 5y ago
        And even arguing that it is justified is hard when the United Nations explicitly stated that the intervention was not.
        the_why_of_y 5y ago
        No, that draft resolution was rejected, 3 votes in favour and 12 against. https://web.archive.org/web/20090301043917/http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/1999/19990326.sc6659.html https://web.archive.org/web/20090301043917/http://www.un.org...
      - nickpp 5y ago
        Balkan wars had a historical tendency to spread to the rest of Europe, so nipping that one in the bud can be seen as a defensive move.
      - EliRivers 5y ago
        But it wasn't a NATO intervention. NATO nations had the choice of not participating. The default action was to not participate. NATO is a defensive alliance; not an offensive alliance.
        ailef 5y ago
        > But it wasn't a NATO intervention Please tell me how I should take your comment seriously. Every reliable source in the world agrees on defining it a "NATO intervention". This is not even debatable and it is exactly the kind of behaviour that would get one instantly labeled as a "Russian propagandist" if one were to make similar (non-sensical) claims regarding Russia actions (and in this case rightly so).
dirtyid 5y ago
I might have to reevaluate acoups writing if this is the calibre of understanding he has.
m12k 5y ago
>The author doesn't get it Or he does, but he considers it understood that the logic of mutually assured destruction rules out "pre-emptive strikes" on nuclear nations like Russia. And if you realize this, it doesn't make sense to view NATO's expansion in Eastern Europe as "creeping closer, preparing for an attack on Russia", as Putin seems to see it, but rather it is happening because existing NATO countries want to afford peace of mind that they are safe from Russian aggression to those European countries that most need it, namely Russia's neighbors. Putin doesn't realize this because he's paranoid - and by acting on his paranoia he has precisely proven that his neighbors need the guarantee that NATO affords.
elihu 5y ago
Article 5 requires all NATO members to defend if one nation is attacked. It doesn't obligate any NATO member to participate if one NATO nation decides to fight an optional war (like in Iraq). Thus the structure of the alliance is defensive even if the members themselves don't always act defensively.
wickedsickeune 5y ago
Well it's pretty good at defending USA's interests...
- walkhour 5y ago
  Yes, but many countries have joined voluntarily, so at least they think NATO defends their interests as well.

Yeah this part disappointed me too, as NATO done things in the past that I struggle to explain as "purely defense" (eg Serbia, Libya). I still think the article holds true, but I think the author should've been more nuanced here because Putin apologists are going to use this mistake to undermine the whole article.

bspammer 5y ago

No one in the west wants to invade Russia. Everyone wants to not be invaded by Russia. That sounds pretty defensive to me.

ailef 5y ago
Yes, if we only consider definitions and ignore NATO actions for the past 50 years.
- yardstick 5y ago
  (Serious question) What have they done in the last 50 years to make you think they would invade Russia?
  - ailef 5y ago
    I was contesting the definition of NATO being a "purely defensive alliance", as is often described also here on HN. For example, NATO intervention in Serbia can hardly considered defensive.
    - dgregd 5y ago
      Serbia is not a part of Russia. It wasn't even in Soviet Union. Yugoslavia was an independent country.
      - ailef 5y ago
        What's your point? The claim that NATO cannot attack Russia is often justified by the fact that "NATO is a defensive alliance". Previous events show that actions by NATO in the recent past do not reflect this definition, so this line of reasoning is invalid. The other line of reasoning on why NATO would not attack Russia is that it would trigger MAD. And while this is a really sad state of affairs, I believe this to be more credible rather than lies about NATO being "purely defensive".
    - mdp2021 5y ago
      > NATO intervention in Serbia To just watch genocide being carried on "in your backyard" is considered not moral, and it is "defensive" in more than one way.
      - mort96 5y ago
        I completely disagree. If sovereign nation A invades sovereign nation B, while under no threat from sovereign nation B, that by itself is enough to qualify as offensive IMO. You could argue (and I'd maybe agree) that it's a justified offensive action, maybe even morally necessary, but it's not defensive.
        ailef 5y ago
        And even arguing that it is justified is hard when the United Nations explicitly stated that the intervention was not.
        the_why_of_y 5y ago
        No, that draft resolution was rejected, 3 votes in favour and 12 against. https://web.archive.org/web/20090301043917/http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/1999/19990326.sc6659.html https://web.archive.org/web/20090301043917/http://www.un.org...
    - nickpp 5y ago
      Balkan wars had a historical tendency to spread to the rest of Europe, so nipping that one in the bud can be seen as a defensive move.
    - EliRivers 5y ago
      But it wasn't a NATO intervention. NATO nations had the choice of not participating. The default action was to not participate. NATO is a defensive alliance; not an offensive alliance.
      - ailef 5y ago
        > But it wasn't a NATO intervention Please tell me how I should take your comment seriously. Every reliable source in the world agrees on defining it a "NATO intervention". This is not even debatable and it is exactly the kind of behaviour that would get one instantly labeled as a "Russian propagandist" if one were to make similar (non-sensical) claims regarding Russia actions (and in this case rightly so).

dirtyid 5y ago

I might have to reevaluate acoups writing if this is the calibre of understanding he has.

m12k 5y ago

>The author doesn't get it Or he does, but he considers it understood that the logic of mutually assured destruction rules out "pre-emptive strikes" on nuclear nations like Russia. And if you realize this, it doesn't make sense to view NATO's expansion in Eastern Europe as "creeping closer, preparing for an attack on Russia", as Putin seems to see it, but rather it is happening because existing NATO countries want to afford peace of mind that they are safe from Russian aggression to those European countries that most need it, namely Russia's neighbors. Putin doesn't realize this because he's paranoid - and by acting on his paranoia he has precisely proven that his neighbors need the guarantee that NATO affords.

elihu 5y ago

Article 5 requires all NATO members to defend if one nation is attacked. It doesn't obligate any NATO member to participate if one NATO nation decides to fight an optional war (like in Iraq). Thus the structure of the alliance is defensive even if the members themselves don't always act defensively.

wickedsickeune 5y ago

Well it's pretty good at defending USA's interests...

walkhour 5y ago
Yes, but many countries have joined voluntarily, so at least they think NATO defends their interests as well.