Quote Originally Posted by poop
It really isn't. He said NATO never invaded another country, and he's right. There's no ifs or buts about it.
I'm attempting to have a more nuanced conversation that what you're saying here.

No, NATO has not literally invaded anywhere. Has it interfered with a nation's politics in order to slowly expand into that nation? If it has done so, does this equate to a bloodless invasion? What does it matter how an invasion happens if the end result is the same? And the end result is satellite states of a superpower.

How is that a bad thing? If a peacekeeping organisation tries to get more members?
Because it creates security problems for the stated enemy of this so-called "peacekeeping organisation". If NATO was genuinely peaceful in its agenda, it would not do its best to enrage Russia, it would instead seek peaceful relations with Russia. NATO's rhetoric is not that of a peaceful entity. Militaries are not peaceful by their very nature.

Fine, that's what you think. But no-one agrees with you.
Nobody here agrees with me, but many do. It's not like I'm the only person who thinks NATO is a problem.

If you want to dismiss the downside of NATO, fair enough, but it leaves you concluding that the only reason Putin is doing this is for Soviet glory territorial gains. To fully realise this ambition, he must fight NATO eventually. I'd rather believe that NATO's relationship with Ukraine is a critical factor that can be resolved, because that's a more optimistic position.