Here’s the thing, you listed the same three names before, and these are the same people constantly being cited in every debate I’ve had with people taking a critical stance against NATO. And they all offer the same argument on the basis of one thing alone: Putin claims it’s “aggression.”

They don’t address the key issues, which is why Russia’s former SSRs want to join NATO, how it’s membership is voluntary, and how Putin has done everything to keep former SSRs in Russia’s orbit and led by his hand-chosen puppets.

They also don’t acknowledge that NATO has delayed endlessly with Ukraine to avoid provoking Russia since 2014, and that Putin still invaded after promising he wouldn’t. At what point do the apologists admit they were wrong and were over-sympathetic to the aggressor? When do they admit they’re what the Kremlin calls “useful idiots”?

I’ve addressed the “provocation” argument countless times now, it’s become tiresome.