im talking about the russia that american had to world police over

also russia isnt exactly stable

@Weez - Isn't NATO expansion literally just people signing up to join, because they want protection from the Russians?

The Soviet Union?

@Arthur Grayborn Protection which wasn't required at the time? Protection which we can say no to?

Tell that to fucking Georgia and Ukraine then.

its arguably very reasonable to apply pressure to them to ensure they develop properly (in a way that doesnt tank the world with them like last time)

Them 'signing up for protection' caused them to need protection.

Does anybody have the study where like

liberals think on two axis

and conervatives think on all six

of somethign

what was thatthing

The Ukrainian annexation was a result of NATO expansion.

@King Canuck Tim pool I think

A denuclearised Ukraine is a result of US promises of protection

No shit but where is he citing it from

@King Canuck its "the moral sensibility test" or something like that

thanks

America caused the issues we have today

nigga wot

...by forming an alliance that only activates if someone else invades you.

The alliance can be used even if someone doesn't attack it..

Russia: wants to invade neighbouring countires
Nato: stop that
Weez: REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

If a NATO country starts a war with someone, that doesn't trigger treaty obligations. In fact, NATO obligations have only been triggered once in the entire history of NATO. That was on 9/11.

>Invasions were caused by aggressive NATO expansion.

@Arthur Grayborn No it doesn't, but when a country retaliates it may.

No. If you start the war, NATO treaty doesn't cover your ass.

imagine consentually bolstering your allies being considered an invasion

imagine imagining

Imagine John Lennon's Imagine

NATO treaty is basically a safeguard against invasion: "If you attack one of us, you attack all of us. As long as you don't attack us though, the treaty means jack shit."

It can also be triggered on 9/11 style events, but in its entire history NATO has been invoked once. Just once.

inb4 this is one of those "but alliances caused WW1" <:bootlet:595693013754314752>

the kind of arguments I unironically get myself into

@Arthur Grayborn “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.”

That's the wording of Article 5

WW1 was caused by SECRET alliances. People would have reconsidered going to war if they knew what the fuck they were getting into.

What's stopping a nation from attacking another and then invoking article 5 when a retaliatory strike comes?

@King Canuck
>tell them about the Leftist who killed people

we wre over that earlier