• archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    I’m not sure who would say that it was to ‘stop NATO aggression’, but it’s not hard to imagine it as a some kind of response to NATO’s continued expansion around them.

    NATO hasn’t been in any direct operations against Russia but they have been involved in the ME where they have been active.

    I think of it a lot in the same way as the US’s pacific ocean and Caribbean territorial expansion and involvement in central america as a response to the Cuban Missile crisis and Soviet posturing.

    • SkyezOpen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      I’m not sure who would say that it was to ‘stop NATO aggression’

      I think the line might be “in response to” or similar, but it’s parroted by tankies and russophiles.

      NATO’s continued expansion around them.

      Can we imagine any reasons why Russia’s neighbors might want to join a defensive pact to protect against Russia? No? Oh well, must be US imperialism then.

      • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        I’m not saying there isn’t reason for those countries to want to joint an alliance against their imperialist neighbor, but honestly it’s kinda hard not to see how NATO’s influence has been abused for purposes other than defense.