NATO is not a defensive pact. It contains many provisions for offensive interventions, which were invoked more than Article 5. Beyond that, even Article 5 was never used in defense, only in offense - safe harbor is not an act of war, and the Afghan government did not provide material support to the attack on 9/11.
It's a military pact that contains both a self defense treaty that goes beyond self defense, as well as purely offensive considerations.
That's 100% bullshit. The Libyan refugees - or worse, those that couldn't leave - whose country was bombed to barbarism and who lost everything feel even more threatened by NATO, which dealt devastation far beyond the worst fantasies from Putin's twisted mind.
Far more people died in the NATO invasion of Afghanistan than there even are soldiers and militia members in the whole of Ukraine.
Make no mistake, NATO is even more threatening and has dealt more devastation than Russia ever could. NATO has just as few qualms about intervention and far more power and experience in ruining countries than even Russia, and that's saying a lot.
> Afghan people hated NATO so much that they were literally hanging off planes when the troops left.
Imagine taking the fact that some people wanted to leave as an excuse for hundreds of thousands of deaths. You're literally trotting the same line as Putin when he talks about people leaving Eastern Ukraine to go to Russia.
> You may keep spewing your propaganda - people already know who the bad guys are here.
No. Unlike you, I'm being consistent. All you can do is adapt your thought pattern so that your in-group can do no harm, open air slave markets and massacres be damned. You can't get around understanding your in group isn't a saintly force for good even when it burns villages and destroys entire countries, and then you accuse others of spewing propaganda. Truly remarkable.
It's a military pact that contains both a self defense treaty that goes beyond self defense, as well as purely offensive considerations.