When you debate grammar it shows you have no good arguments. I don’t always spell things correctly, because I am more focused on making sense, then appearance. If you understand what I mean, that is good enough for me. I understand that Russia and NATO are both problems and I understand that NATO is obviously far more powerful and bigger. I also understand what NATO claims to be, but I also see their presence in places where legally shouldn’t be. Take Kosovo for example, by the UN it is not recognized as independent, legally it is part of Serbia and Serbia does not support NATO troops there. Legally speaking, that is an invasion. Practically NATO countries invade many Middle Eastern countries as well, they wear NATO hats when they speak of peace, but often (but not always) remove that hat when they invade other countries. You can either accept that both NATO and countries that invade Middle East are the same countries run by the same people with same interests and same goals, making it the same thing. Or you can pretend that only what is legally defined as separate is important, but then accept that legally NATO also sometimes invades countries and were never invaded themselves, making them more offensive then defensive. You can’t have it both ways.