4 ms·

This is a joke. NATO is not hostile, unless you plan on invading.

jmyeet 5y ago
Then explain: 1. NATO bombing of Kosovo. This is offensive military action; 2. NATO invasion of Libya. This is offensive military action; and 3. NATO having strategic nuclear weapons. The US deploying nuclear weapons to Turkey is really what precipitated the Cuban Missile Crisis.
- pelorat 5y ago
  Cuban Missile Crisis had nothing to do with NATO, that was a US problem. Most of NATO thinks the USA is treating Cuba unfairly and would like to see them stop all the sanctions.
  - jmyeet 5y ago
    What prompted the Soviets to deploy nuclear weapons to Cuba was US nuclear missiles being deployed to Turkey under NATO control.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > NATO invasion of Libya The one the UN Security Council, on which Russia and China each have a veto, ordered [1]? [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_i...
  - jmyeet 5y ago
    Libya did have a UNSC resolution, sure. Kosovo didn't. UN involvement aside, NATO has shown a willingness and a capability to carry out military operations on another continent (Africa obviously in the case of Libya). The only reason people don't label that as offensive military action is because they've bought into view that the US is a benign hegemony. You may agree that the US is benign. That's not the argument. The argument is that global powers (notably Russia and China let alone anywhere in the Middle East) do not view the US as benign. Now you can say they're wrong but that doesn't matter. Being right or wrong on this is irrelevant. Failing to account for how other people might not view it this way is a big part of what led to this crisis even though it is still 100% Putin's responsibility in starting an unjustifiable war. This isn't an either-or situation. Even though Putin is 100% wrong, the US can also be wrong.
  - dmz73 5y ago
    Does it matter if it was sanctioned by UN? It was still an offensive action and not peace keeping one. I believe that Russia made a big mistake by invading Ukraine but that doesn't mean they did not have something to fear from NATO. Maybe things would have been different today if NATO gave Russia a guarantee they will not accept Ukraine as a member. Maybe it wouldn't matter. We won't know for a long time but I think it would have been worth a try.
- otherme123 5y ago
  1 and 2. UN asked NATO to do so. 3. Solved with zero deaths in less than two weeks, and removed missiles fron Turkey. Nothing to do with NATO. Meanwhile I'm 100% sure that NATO has already avoided a bloodbath in Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia, in the light of current events. Ukraine handed nuclear weapons to Russia in exchange of a promise to never invade them, and look where we are.
  - jmyeet 5y ago
    > 1 and 2. UN asked NATO to do so. Wrong [1]: > NATO countries attempted to gain authorisation from the UN Security Council for military action, but were opposed by China and Russia, who indicated that they would veto such a measure. As a result, NATO launched its campaign without the UN's approval, stating that it was a humanitarian intervention. > Nothing to do with NATO. Not according to NATO [2] (emphasis added): > ... furthermore, in the early 1960s, NATO was authorised by Ankara to station medium-range Jupiter missiles near Izmir for a short period of time. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia [2]: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/declassified_191048.htm?selectedLocale=en https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/declassified_191048.htm?s...
    - otherme123 5y ago
      Ok, lets say I give you both. People killed in [1]: around 2,000, and a bloody war ended. No countries were anexed by NATO members. No puppet states were created. People killed in [2]: 0. Mistake recognized, turkish missiles removed, Cuba never invaded. It doesn't sound like a terrifying force that keeps anexating countries and setting puppets or war lords. NATO is terrifying if you plan to go hunting small countries without nuclear weapons.

Then explain: 1. NATO bombing of Kosovo. This is offensive military action; 2. NATO invasion of Libya. This is offensive military action; and 3. NATO having strategic nuclear weapons. The US deploying nuclear weapons to Turkey is really what precipitated the Cuban Missile Crisis.

pelorat 5y ago
Cuban Missile Crisis had nothing to do with NATO, that was a US problem. Most of NATO thinks the USA is treating Cuba unfairly and would like to see them stop all the sanctions.
- jmyeet 5y ago
  What prompted the Soviets to deploy nuclear weapons to Cuba was US nuclear missiles being deployed to Turkey under NATO control.
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> NATO invasion of Libya The one the UN Security Council, on which Russia and China each have a veto, ordered [1]? [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_i...
- jmyeet 5y ago
  Libya did have a UNSC resolution, sure. Kosovo didn't. UN involvement aside, NATO has shown a willingness and a capability to carry out military operations on another continent (Africa obviously in the case of Libya). The only reason people don't label that as offensive military action is because they've bought into view that the US is a benign hegemony. You may agree that the US is benign. That's not the argument. The argument is that global powers (notably Russia and China let alone anywhere in the Middle East) do not view the US as benign. Now you can say they're wrong but that doesn't matter. Being right or wrong on this is irrelevant. Failing to account for how other people might not view it this way is a big part of what led to this crisis even though it is still 100% Putin's responsibility in starting an unjustifiable war. This isn't an either-or situation. Even though Putin is 100% wrong, the US can also be wrong.
- dmz73 5y ago
  Does it matter if it was sanctioned by UN? It was still an offensive action and not peace keeping one. I believe that Russia made a big mistake by invading Ukraine but that doesn't mean they did not have something to fear from NATO. Maybe things would have been different today if NATO gave Russia a guarantee they will not accept Ukraine as a member. Maybe it wouldn't matter. We won't know for a long time but I think it would have been worth a try.
otherme123 5y ago
1 and 2. UN asked NATO to do so. 3. Solved with zero deaths in less than two weeks, and removed missiles fron Turkey. Nothing to do with NATO. Meanwhile I'm 100% sure that NATO has already avoided a bloodbath in Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia, in the light of current events. Ukraine handed nuclear weapons to Russia in exchange of a promise to never invade them, and look where we are.
- jmyeet 5y ago
  > 1 and 2. UN asked NATO to do so. Wrong [1]: > NATO countries attempted to gain authorisation from the UN Security Council for military action, but were opposed by China and Russia, who indicated that they would veto such a measure. As a result, NATO launched its campaign without the UN's approval, stating that it was a humanitarian intervention. > Nothing to do with NATO. Not according to NATO [2] (emphasis added): > ... furthermore, in the early 1960s, NATO was authorised by Ankara to station medium-range Jupiter missiles near Izmir for a short period of time. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia [2]: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/declassified_191048.htm?selectedLocale=en https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/declassified_191048.htm?s...
  - otherme123 5y ago
    Ok, lets say I give you both. People killed in [1]: around 2,000, and a bloody war ended. No countries were anexed by NATO members. No puppet states were created. People killed in [2]: 0. Mistake recognized, turkish missiles removed, Cuba never invaded. It doesn't sound like a terrifying force that keeps anexating countries and setting puppets or war lords. NATO is terrifying if you plan to go hunting small countries without nuclear weapons.