Yeah, so that's mostly spin.

First, NATO is a defensive alliance that has been used offensively multiple times. The very first time was by Clinton, who was critical to the discourse around structural security for Europe and the RF as the USSR dissolved, and he used it to launch a devastating invasion of the last remaining communist nation in the region - Yugoslavia. A clear show of force and willingness to commit war crimes.

The liberals argue that point by saying there was a genocide/ethnic cleansing going on, but then refuse to show any evidence of it in the numbers, and refuse to explain why NATO was dropping depleted uranium bombs in high density civilian urban areas.

Therefore the idea that NATO is defensive is suspect, but also the idea that NATO being defensive should give it a free pass is massively problematic.

For example. You think you understand MAD, the framework that keeps us all safe from nuclear war. But are you aware that the USA has been trying to undermine MAD for decades on the premise that it ought to be able to launch a nuclear strike without fear of retaliation? How would they do that?

Well, first it needs major first strike advantages. It achieves his by having very short times from launch to impact, which requires proximity. Then it needs diversity of paths, which requires encirclement. And finally it requires anti-missile asymmetry, which requires both proximity and encirclement.

By having defensive anti missile capabilities inches from its opponents, while it's opponents can achieve no such thing, the USA can undermine MAD. This is inherently an offensive capability. You understand this pretty well because you understand why certain types of body armor are illegal for civilians. Body armor is "purely defensive" but what it enables is devastating offense.

So yes, if NATO was ONLY installing anti missile capabilities around Russia that would be enough. But that's not all they were doing.

Right before the Maidan coup was Ukraine's first ever join exercise with NATO. Through the following years those exercises would include Trident exercises, which saw nuclear forces training for strikes on Russia including nuclear bombers. Those exercises also included a simulated invasion of Russian territory.

Defensive simulations of defensive invasions?

No. The reality is that the Western claptrap that NATO is both purely defensive and also that pure defense cannot be a cause for intervention are both spurious and cynically deceptive primarily meant to be consumed by citizens of NATO countries to maintain an xenophobic fever that can be leveraged in times of need for public support of Western barbarism.

NATO is an alliance of imperialist countries that purely exists to terrorize and threaten countries into opening up their markets for western plunder. It destroyed Libya and Yugoslavia, and through Operation Gladio has terrorist cells. It's just as much a "defensive" alliance as the Israeli "Defense" Force.

The standard liberal counterargument is that NATO is a voluntary defensive alliance operating on the basis of consensus. Article 5 of the Washington Treaty is only really activated in the event of an attack on one of the members.

However, this argument is unconvincing for Russia for several reasons:

• Past experience, as NATO's military operations in Yugoslavia (1999) without a UN mandate were perceived in Moscow as proof that the alliance could act offensively outside its territory.
• Changing doctrines, as knowledge of the evolution of NATO's doctrines after the Cold War, including operations outside the territory of the participating countries, allows Russia to assert that the initially defensive nature of the alliance has changed.
• Missile defense system, because the deployment of the American missile defense system in Eastern Europe, although claimed as protection against the threat from Iran, is perceived by Moscow as part of an offensive strategic potential that undermines its nuclear deterrent.