The bully is the coward.

> You can bully over and over again but at some point the most cowardly person will snap.

You could use this exact statement to justify what Russia is doing right now, if NATO is the bully. And if we look at recent history, we definitely know that NATO behaves as a bully when things don't go the way they planned.

You need to be more specific. To my knowledge there were no military operations by NATO forces that were not either sanctioned by the UN or just within the borders of NATO members.

If you refer to the fact that sovereign countries applied for NATO membership and got accepted, you have to tell how that is bullying.

If Ukraine were part of NATO, it's unlikely that it got attacked.

What about the wars against Iraq and Afghanistan?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_War_in_Afgha...

NATO wasn't involved in the invasion of Iraq, though NATO did operations during the occupation supporting the Iraqi government.

NATO was involved in both the initial campaign against Afghanistan in response to an attack on a NATO member and later support operations in support of the new (and now defunct) Afghan government, but neither was inconsistent with its defensive character.

For future reference, the proper whataboutism here is Yugoslavia and Libya, nor Iraq and Afghanistan. If you are going to play the game, at least know what you are talking about.

That is semantics. NATO does not have its own army, but the members form a common army from their national troops.

Iraqis and Afghans certainly did not notice the difference that they were not attacked by a joint NATO army of British, Italians, Americans etc. but only by an army of the willing made up of British, Italians and Americans.

If the US had been able to declare an alliance, it would have been under the NATO umbrella.

I doubt that during the Cold War a distinction would have been made between a Warsaw Pact army of Poles, Romanians and Russians and a coalition army of Poles, Romanians and Russians.

> If the US had been able to declare an alliance, it would have been under the NATO umbrella.

They did, and it wasn't.

My sentence is missing a word. They tried to call it a NATO alliance case, but weren't able to, that's why it was only a coalition of the willing.

You're just playing on technicalities here. It doesn't show good faith and doesn't help the conversation. This is not whataboutism.

NATO forces weren't involved with the Iraq war.

The Afghanistan missions were conducted due to UN resolutions.

So the US has different soldiers and equipment for NATO, or is it just legal construct.

How can you distinguish a coalition army of Brits, Italians and Americans from a NATO army of Brits, Italians and Americans?

It's the patch, isn't it? The rest is the same.

And it was about NATO forces not led by NATO.

The forces of a NATO member are NATO forces. Or do you think if Russia would attack polish forces it wouldn't be considered as an attack on NATO forces?

NATO and UN are basically twin brothers from the geopolitical stance. We can say the "West" instead of NATO if that's better for you.

The UN puts Russia and China in veto positions; that's a significant difference from NATO.

Yet it's clear that Russia is isolated in the UN (with slight support from China). As of now, NATO and UN are both playing the same game.

Do those have something to do with joining NATO?

Beside the middle east, Yugoslavia comes to mind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia