*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[Poopadoop]

This is a matter of contention.

It really isn't. He said NATO never invaded another country, and he's right. There's no ifs or buts about it.

NATO doesn't expand its territory by invasion. NATO expands by treaty. NATO can extend its influence politically, by supporting opposition parties that can apply for NATO membership when they get into power.

How is that a bad thing? If a peacekeeping organisation tries to get more members?

It's all very well saying NATO is a peacekeeping force, but from Russia's pov, it's an anti-Russian expansion military alliance expanding into its former territory.

fyp.

The Baltic States are not Russian! They were conquered by Stalin during WWII. They broke free when the USSR collapsed.

The Ukraine is also not Russian. Hence the name "Ukraine," meaning "country where Ukrainians live."

Chechnia is also not Russian. Chechens live there.

Your mistake is confusing the Russian Empire with the Russian nation. They're two different things.

This is failing to see it from their pov. You're using language like "peacekeeping organisation" like it's how Putin see it. Russia does not view NATO in the same way you do. And frankly, I'm more inclined to think Putin is better placed to judge NATO's geopolitical intentions than you, or indeed myself.

This is quite the logical corner you've painted yourself into to. No-one can tell what NATO's intentions are, but you can tell what Putin thinks NATO's intentions are. That is some serious meta-power of thinking you possess there.

NATO exists to ensure military dominance over Russia so they stop invading them.

fyp again.

NATO is basically USA's satellite states bound by treaty to defend USA's de facto empire.

At the end of WWII, Russia had the largest army in the world. The previous largest army in the world had just been defeated. Stalin installed puppet regimes throughout Eastern Europe. NATO was a strategic alliance arranged to stop that expansion. W. Europe alone could not have stopped Stalin if he had attacked them. So they created NATO which was a way of the US guaranteeing the security of W. Europe against Russia.

It's really not as complicated as you're trying to make it out, and it's certainly not nefarious. NATO has never attacked either Russia or its allies in 75 years.

But in this context, I see NATO causing the very problems it seeks to solve. NATO wants these problems because it ensures their existence and further expansion.

Fine, that's what you think. But no-one agrees with you.

You can't blame Russia for feeling like a cornered rat, if their view of NATO is anything like mine. And it is.

Equally plausible a priori is Mojo's argument that NATO is the only thing stopping Putin from going MRGA on Eastern Europe.

And in the bigger picture, there's no point in trying to soulread Putin over this. His actions are what counts. And his actions are consistent not with a nation that's been attacked, but with an empire trying to expand into its former territories.