The same argument can be used in favor of Russia. NATO has invaded plenty of countries under false pretenses in the past. Both Russia and NATO do not have a reputation for keeping their promises.

[–] Miaou@jlai.lu 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

"plenty"

[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Unironically yes, NATO members have invaded a lot of places, often in coalition with other member states.

[–] Crashumbc@lemmy.world -3 points 2 months ago (3 children)

That's like saying Canada is responsible for something Mexico did because they're both on the same continent...

NATO is purely a defense agreement.

[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

It is more like saying the axis is known to invade nations because its member states invade nations. Okay, sure, Germany and Italy invaded the soviet union but Japan didn't, you can't say they're not a defensive alliance /s

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago

The Intercept, 2021: Meet NATO, the Dangerous “Defensive” Alliance Trying to Run the World
CounterPunch, 2022: NATO is Not a Defensive Alliance
Noam Chomsky, 2023: NATO “most violent, aggressive alliance in the world”
Thomas Fazi, 2024: NATO: 75 years of war, unprovoked aggressions and state-sponsored terrorism
Jeffrey Sachs, 2024: The 2024 NATO Declaration The Deadly Strategy of Neoconservatism

[–] Count042@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Tell that to Libya.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 months ago

Or Belgrade/the former Yugoslavia.