If the alliance was based on defense, I would be totally fine with it. In the case of an attack from one of the member states to an other state, the retaliation doesnt count as an attack to the member state, so the pact won’t activate. Of course that depends on how the member states want to interpret the pact. The pact signals a certain closeness / likemindedness, but not forming a pact wouldn’t stop these states from supporting one another. So for me, any country anywhere in the world can not be against any defense pact of any set of countries, assuming the spirit of defense of the pact is being honored. Or do you think its naive to think a pact based on defense won’t be used for attacking?
If the alliance was based on defense, I would be totally fine with it. In the case of an attack from one of the member states to an other state, the retaliation doesnt count as an attack to the member state, so the pact won’t activate. Of course that depends on how the member states want to interpret the pact. The pact signals a certain closeness / likemindedness, but not forming a pact wouldn’t stop these states from supporting one another. So for me, any country anywhere in the world can not be against any defense pact of any set of countries, assuming the spirit of defense of the pact is being honored. Or do you think its naive to think a pact based on defense won’t be used for attacking?