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.
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).
To just watch genocide being carried on "in your backyard" is considered not moral, and it is "defensive" in more than one way.
https://web.archive.org/web/20090301043917/http://www.un.org...
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".