I was contesting the definition of NATO being a "purely defensive alliance", as is often described also here on HN. For example, NATO intervention in Serbia can hardly considered defensive.
But it wasn't a NATO intervention. NATO nations had the choice of not participating. The default action was to not participate. NATO is a defensive alliance; not an offensive alliance.
Please tell me how I should take your comment seriously. Every reliable source in the world agrees on defining it a "NATO intervention". This is not even debatable and it is exactly the kind of behaviour that would get one instantly labeled as a "Russian propagandist" if one were to make similar (non-sensical) claims regarding Russia actions (and in this case rightly so).
I completely disagree. If sovereign nation A invades sovereign nation B, while under no threat from sovereign nation B, that by itself is enough to qualify as offensive IMO. You could argue (and I'd maybe agree) that it's a justified offensive action, maybe even morally necessary, but it's not defensive.
The claim that NATO cannot attack Russia is often justified by the fact that "NATO is a defensive alliance". Previous events show that actions by NATO in the recent past do not reflect this definition, so this line of reasoning is invalid.
The other line of reasoning on why NATO would not attack Russia is that it would trigger MAD. And while this is a really sad state of affairs, I believe this to be more credible rather than lies about NATO being "purely defensive".
