Stating things like "NATO is a purely defensive alliance" makes me question the accuracy of this analysis.
AFAIK, none of the NATO articles were invoked as part of the operation in Yugoslavia. That is to say, though it was a NATO operation, members were not bound by treaty to participate.
This fact muddles some of the points the author made, but the author speaks broadly of the ramifications of invoking Article 5, so I would say their analysis is well-reasoned.
Yes, should've just turned eyes away from genocide in Europe.
… that agreement is purely defensive.
If you and I see some vile rhetoric that is directed at someone else, we can both decide to attack it, even though it’s arguable our actions are offensive. That action is independent and not bound by the YCTO.
We just both agree, independent of the YCTO, to act.
It’s a function of like-minded values that made the decision.
1.a) NATO declared that "defense only" claim is a lie.
1.b) Other countries will now ask themselves what else in NATO charter is a lie.
2. USA, the permanent member of UN Security Council(which is de-facto enforcer of all UN decisions), severely undermined UN authority.