3 ms·

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

by 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).

by 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).