4 ms·

As someone also born and raised in Eastern Europe, I feel entirely the opposite. All of those NATO weapons and aggression destroyed my country's economic indep

As someone also born and raised in Eastern Europe, I feel entirely the opposite. All of those NATO weapons and aggression destroyed my country's economic independence and increased poverty and wealth inequality. I take no solace in being occupied by NATO troops.

HFguy 5y ago
Can you lay out more how you are thinking about this? I don't see it that way, but would appreciate another view point.
- dontlaugh 5y ago
  Before 89, the working class of my country had control of the state and most of the economy. There were of course many problems, but wealth inequality was far lower, essentials were cheap (rent at 5% of income!) and jobs were guaranteed. NATO waged economic warfare and funded fascists (particularly intensified in the 80s), culminating in a violent coup by the army. Since then, we've seen hyperinflation, privatisations, austerity and deregulation. While technology is much improved, the relative proportion of wages spent on essentials is vastly increased and most well paid jobs are for foreign companies that extract profits outside the country.
  - k8wk1 5y ago
    I think you should also consider tens of millions of people who lived under Russian boot in USSR itself and Warsaw pact countries. It appeared that wealth inequality is lower because there was no free press and thus no way to see it. People who waited years to be able to get a permission to buy a car or an apartment had no way to make their situation known. A significant part of populations lived relatively well just because of their place in the society. The lack of free press caused them to think that everyone lives like them. However this was the exact consequence of the oppression of the rest of society. This spanned countries: USSR extracted production from one set of countries and subsidized others. The populations of the latter group naturally saw the collapse of USSR as a bad thing since their standard of living became lower. The fact that there were certain parts of the world that lived better under USSR does not make suffering of other people a good thing.
  - stickfigure 5y ago
    Which country? You're constructing a narrative that is impossible to challenge because you're being deliberately vague. If you want an honest discussion, you must be more forthcoming. Edit: From dontlaugh's comment history, it's Romania.
    - credit_guy 5y ago
      Romania before 1989 had long lines for bread, it had food rations (like other countries in war time), people had to wait for about 5 years to buy a car. You could not move from one city to another, except if your job moved or you got married with someone from the target city. You could not buy milk, except if you had infants, or with a doctor’s notice. As a 14-old kid, convalescing from Hepatitis, I had such a notice, so my Dad had the priviledge to wake up every morning at 5am and go wait in a very long line for 2 hours, so I could drink milk (which was said to help the liver). We had electricity blackouts on a daily basis. Yes, we were all equal. Equal in our collective misery. Except for the Party leaders. It’s very easy to look back with rose tinted glasses after 33 years. But in reality things were truly bad back then.
      - dontlaugh 5y ago
        In the 80s, there was indeed a deep economic crisis. It resulted primarily from economic warfare. The country was offered the chance to sell to the West, under the condition of taking IMF funds. After spending them on developing factories, we were denied the ability to sell the products (mostly industrial equipment). We were only allowed to sell agricultural products to pay off the debt, hence the rationing. Today, that would be called sanctions.
        stoltzmann 5y ago
        I'll bite the bait. Do you have any sources that would cover your interpretation of events? To the best of my knowledge, the crisis in 80s Romania was due to similar causes as in other communist countries of the period - the economy was quickly industrialized based on foreign loans (which were also spent partially on consumption) in the 70s, with most investments made in heavy industry. That is a very good base for building tanks and heavy armaments which the Warsaw Pact needed, but it's not suited so much for export to the West and bolstering the national economy. The effects of those ill-thought investments are felt to this day in Eastern Europe - but it's not due to the West trying to sabotage national production, but due to inefficient implementation of obsolete production processes in the centrally commanded economies.
  - Pigalowda 5y ago
    This is standard Russian propagated nostalgia. Romania was a poor corrupt vassal state of the USSR. The working class did not have control of Romania, Nicolae Ceaușescu did from 1965-1989 as the general secretary. The 1980’s in communist Romania were a time of austerity, not the other way around. Median household income is now 3x higher. I’m not sure why I’m replying to such a disingenuous person and plain deceitful post but i guess i wanted to argue with liars on the internet today.
heavenlyblue 5y ago
> Eastern Europe A huge part of Eastern Europe (but not all ofc) would disagree with you.
- juanani 5y ago
watwut 5y ago
Which exact Eastern European country is occupied by NATO? Cause as far as I can tell, such a place does not exists. And multiple of them pushed, pressured, pleaded and lobbied very hard to get in.
- dontlaugh 5y ago
  The governments of several countries did seek NATO membership, but the overall populations have generally been at best neutral or even against NATO. Especially the occupying US bases are almost universally disliked.
  - stoltzmann 5y ago
    Polls done in the 90s in the Eastern European countries provide a picture contrary to what you're claiming here. As an example - Poland (my home country), https://www.cbos.pl/SPISKOM.POL/2022/K_040_22.PDF https://www.cbos.pl/SPISKOM.POL/2022/K_040_22.PDF - 60% of population willing to join NATO in 1999. Only 11% against. You also should consider that support for NATO today is at a level of 94%.
  - trevorboaconstr 5y ago
    Your statement is contrary to the information I’m seeing. Can you provide an example, please?
  - jskrablin 5y ago
    Most NATO members from East Europe/ex communist countries held referendums on NATO membership. And I can't recall a single state that would join NATO against the will of general population. Happy to be proven wrong if my memory failed me.
  - watwut 5y ago
    That is just not true.
- stickfigure 5y ago
  In another comment, parent said he/she is from Romania. Any other Romanians want to comment on this "occupied by NATO" claim?

HFguy 5y ago

Can you lay out more how you are thinking about this? I don't see it that way, but would appreciate another view point.

dontlaugh 5y ago
Before 89, the working class of my country had control of the state and most of the economy. There were of course many problems, but wealth inequality was far lower, essentials were cheap (rent at 5% of income!) and jobs were guaranteed. NATO waged economic warfare and funded fascists (particularly intensified in the 80s), culminating in a violent coup by the army. Since then, we've seen hyperinflation, privatisations, austerity and deregulation. While technology is much improved, the relative proportion of wages spent on essentials is vastly increased and most well paid jobs are for foreign companies that extract profits outside the country.
- k8wk1 5y ago
  I think you should also consider tens of millions of people who lived under Russian boot in USSR itself and Warsaw pact countries. It appeared that wealth inequality is lower because there was no free press and thus no way to see it. People who waited years to be able to get a permission to buy a car or an apartment had no way to make their situation known. A significant part of populations lived relatively well just because of their place in the society. The lack of free press caused them to think that everyone lives like them. However this was the exact consequence of the oppression of the rest of society. This spanned countries: USSR extracted production from one set of countries and subsidized others. The populations of the latter group naturally saw the collapse of USSR as a bad thing since their standard of living became lower. The fact that there were certain parts of the world that lived better under USSR does not make suffering of other people a good thing.
- stickfigure 5y ago
  Which country? You're constructing a narrative that is impossible to challenge because you're being deliberately vague. If you want an honest discussion, you must be more forthcoming. Edit: From dontlaugh's comment history, it's Romania.
  - credit_guy 5y ago
    Romania before 1989 had long lines for bread, it had food rations (like other countries in war time), people had to wait for about 5 years to buy a car. You could not move from one city to another, except if your job moved or you got married with someone from the target city. You could not buy milk, except if you had infants, or with a doctor’s notice. As a 14-old kid, convalescing from Hepatitis, I had such a notice, so my Dad had the priviledge to wake up every morning at 5am and go wait in a very long line for 2 hours, so I could drink milk (which was said to help the liver). We had electricity blackouts on a daily basis. Yes, we were all equal. Equal in our collective misery. Except for the Party leaders. It’s very easy to look back with rose tinted glasses after 33 years. But in reality things were truly bad back then.
    - dontlaugh 5y ago
      In the 80s, there was indeed a deep economic crisis. It resulted primarily from economic warfare. The country was offered the chance to sell to the West, under the condition of taking IMF funds. After spending them on developing factories, we were denied the ability to sell the products (mostly industrial equipment). We were only allowed to sell agricultural products to pay off the debt, hence the rationing. Today, that would be called sanctions.
      - stoltzmann 5y ago
        I'll bite the bait. Do you have any sources that would cover your interpretation of events? To the best of my knowledge, the crisis in 80s Romania was due to similar causes as in other communist countries of the period - the economy was quickly industrialized based on foreign loans (which were also spent partially on consumption) in the 70s, with most investments made in heavy industry. That is a very good base for building tanks and heavy armaments which the Warsaw Pact needed, but it's not suited so much for export to the West and bolstering the national economy. The effects of those ill-thought investments are felt to this day in Eastern Europe - but it's not due to the West trying to sabotage national production, but due to inefficient implementation of obsolete production processes in the centrally commanded economies.
- Pigalowda 5y ago
  This is standard Russian propagated nostalgia. Romania was a poor corrupt vassal state of the USSR. The working class did not have control of Romania, Nicolae Ceaușescu did from 1965-1989 as the general secretary. The 1980’s in communist Romania were a time of austerity, not the other way around. Median household income is now 3x higher. I’m not sure why I’m replying to such a disingenuous person and plain deceitful post but i guess i wanted to argue with liars on the internet today.

heavenlyblue 5y ago

> Eastern Europe A huge part of Eastern Europe (but not all ofc) would disagree with you.

juanani 5y ago

watwut 5y ago

Which exact Eastern European country is occupied by NATO? Cause as far as I can tell, such a place does not exists. And multiple of them pushed, pressured, pleaded and lobbied very hard to get in.

dontlaugh 5y ago
The governments of several countries did seek NATO membership, but the overall populations have generally been at best neutral or even against NATO. Especially the occupying US bases are almost universally disliked.
- stoltzmann 5y ago
  Polls done in the 90s in the Eastern European countries provide a picture contrary to what you're claiming here. As an example - Poland (my home country), https://www.cbos.pl/SPISKOM.POL/2022/K_040_22.PDF https://www.cbos.pl/SPISKOM.POL/2022/K_040_22.PDF - 60% of population willing to join NATO in 1999. Only 11% against. You also should consider that support for NATO today is at a level of 94%.
- trevorboaconstr 5y ago
  Your statement is contrary to the information I’m seeing. Can you provide an example, please?
- jskrablin 5y ago
  Most NATO members from East Europe/ex communist countries held referendums on NATO membership. And I can't recall a single state that would join NATO against the will of general population. Happy to be proven wrong if my memory failed me.
- watwut 5y ago
  That is just not true.
stickfigure 5y ago
In another comment, parent said he/she is from Romania. Any other Romanians want to comment on this "occupied by NATO" claim?