3 ms·

> I think encircling your border with an offensive military alliance is very much like placing nukes 100 miles away and pointing them at you, yes. Why do you t

> I think encircling your border with an offensive military alliance is very much like placing nukes 100 miles away and pointing them at you, yes. Why do you think NATO is an offensive alliance against Russia? > I wouldnt want the military alliance that destroyed Libya anywhere near me if I thought I could be a target. Having a strict "dont end up like Libya" policy is actually a fairly sensible. Odd isn’t it? It’s almost like if you are like Libya, and you murder your citizens, deny them basic rights, and enrich yourself at their expense you end up on the receiving end of some measure of justice. I can’t imagine what could possibly prevent that. No country has ever figured that out. Nope. No way.

pydry 5y ago
>Why do you think NATO is an offensive alliance against Russia? It was set up specifically to oppose Moscow. It destroyed Libya. It is an offensive alliance without question. That doesnt excuse Russia, but Russia invading Ukraine doesnt excuse NATO either.
- signatoremo 5y ago
  > It was set up specifically to oppose Moscow. Wrong. It was set up to oppose the Soviet Union. Not Russia. Putin himself was talking about joining NATO. Regardless of how serious he was, no country consider joining an organization if it’s hostile to them. > It is an offensive alliance without question. Good thing you mentioned Libya, because that’s the only campaign that NATO involved in an offensive role. Even putting aside the circumstances of that campaign, an offensive organization that exists for 73 years but has only waged a single war, does that make any sense?
  - pydry 5y ago
    >Wrong. It was set up to oppose the Soviet Union. Not Russia. I said Moscow. Did Moscow stop being Moscow? >Good thing you mentioned Libya, because that’s the only campaign that NATO involved in an offensive role. One rape makes you a rapist. >an offensive organization that exists for 73 years but has only waged a single war They've waged many. I gave Libya as an example because there are no shades of gray in that war and because it was the war that shaped Putin's view of what NATO's endgame was for Russia (quite fairly, IMHO).

pydry 5y ago

>Why do you think NATO is an offensive alliance against Russia? It was set up specifically to oppose Moscow. It destroyed Libya. It is an offensive alliance without question. That doesnt excuse Russia, but Russia invading Ukraine doesnt excuse NATO either.

signatoremo 5y ago
> It was set up specifically to oppose Moscow. Wrong. It was set up to oppose the Soviet Union. Not Russia. Putin himself was talking about joining NATO. Regardless of how serious he was, no country consider joining an organization if it’s hostile to them. > It is an offensive alliance without question. Good thing you mentioned Libya, because that’s the only campaign that NATO involved in an offensive role. Even putting aside the circumstances of that campaign, an offensive organization that exists for 73 years but has only waged a single war, does that make any sense?
- pydry 5y ago
  >Wrong. It was set up to oppose the Soviet Union. Not Russia. I said Moscow. Did Moscow stop being Moscow? >Good thing you mentioned Libya, because that’s the only campaign that NATO involved in an offensive role. One rape makes you a rapist. >an offensive organization that exists for 73 years but has only waged a single war They've waged many. I gave Libya as an example because there are no shades of gray in that war and because it was the war that shaped Putin's view of what NATO's endgame was for Russia (quite fairly, IMHO).