4 ms·

> It is a tactic of bullies to reframe "defense" as "aggression" Of course, that is why the most common pro-NATO shilling narrative is that it is merely "defen

> It is a tactic of bullies to reframe "defense" as "aggression" Of course, that is why the most common pro-NATO shilling narrative is that it is merely "defensive". NATO is just another military organization, whose business is war. And just as any other military, it will be (and has been https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NATO_Operations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NATO_Operations ) used as a political tool. NATO and Russia aren't allies (at best), which makes NATO a threat for Russia, simply by definition. Pinky-promising that NATO won't be used as a threat or a political tool obviously doesn't count, since there are quite enough precedents of the contrary. These are just boringly objective risk-management calculations and conclusions that any manager would reach. > I don't observe anybody joining a military alliance with the goal of protecting themselves from Panama or Luxembourg. Do you really feel like Panama or Luxembourg are fair examples, instead of countries like the US, that actually has military capability? You wouldn't deny that there are quite a lot of instances of people trying to protect themselves from the US and NATO, would you? How come? Really, it all boils down to a dangerous supremacist idea that there is only one culture enlightened and wise enough to use its military capabilities, and it is widely accepted in the western bubble. This concept is just so desired, that it erases any kind of reflection on how one can pave the road to hell with good intentions. The conflict in Ukraine, for example, was born out of a public push (by the US, mostly) for it to join NATO, even before all the bad stuff started. Ironic, really, like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

kibwen 4y ago
This is utter nonsense. Unlike Russia, NATO isn't invading members in order to force them to join. Countries are begging NATO to let them in so that they have some measure of protection against Russia. NATO is not some "supremacist idea" of who gets to use military force, it is a reaction to Russian aggression. Ukraine did not seek to join NATO due to the US asking it to, it sought to join NATO to defend against Russia after overthrowing Putin's puppet in 2014. Quit your bullshit.
- digikazi 4y ago
  NATO was quite happy to bomb Serbia and Libya, to name but two.
  - jemmyw 4y ago
    NATO operated in Libya to implement a security council resolution, meaning it had at least the tacit approval of China and Russia as well.
    - foverzar 4y ago
      > NATO operated in Libya to implement a security council resolution, meaning it had at least the tacit approval of China and Russia as well. The criticism towards NATO in Lybia mostly boils down to NATO overstepping and going out of scope of the resolution. And clearly, it's not Russia, China or the US who should decide for Africa. What about Syria? The US is relying on NATO infrastructure for its operations there. Who invited them? What about Yugoslavia? This is an especially noteworthy case, judging by how hard the western propaganda tries to erase it from history. Just ask a Serbian whether they feel like NATOs depleted uranium munitions felt "defensive", or what they think of the narrative that current conflict in Ukraine is the first serious conflict in Europe since WWII. Srsly, what is it going to take to drop an idiotic supremacist image of NATO as a beloved and welcomed knight in shining armor, and realize that it's just a tool of war. Probably quite a lot, since it was born in a culture with a history of inventing supremacist ideologies, deaf to an idea that some might not really see it as a universal good, but rather as just another quasi-empire, minding it's own political and economic benefit before anything else. Quite a lot of people in Eurasia and Africa see NATO as a threat and don't feel like being ochlos to NATO's demos. But what do these subhuman unenlightened savages understand, am I right? /s
      - jemmyw 4y ago
        There isn't some separate NATO army that does things at the behest of its members. Sometimes the members of NATO decide to do things with their militaries, alone or together. They have clubbed together on some equipment standards too. But the existence or not of NATO as a defensive alliance wouldn't have prevented those countries from intervening in those situations. Turkey could have provided those bases for the US to use in Syria NATO or not. Indeed, they didn't just provide them because they're NATO, the US still had to make an agreement. I think the Syrian Kurds were pretty keen on the US being there, and the Kosovo Albanians in Yugoslavia. If I recall that one correctly, Russia also sent a peacekeeping force at the same time. > Quite a lot of people in Eurasia and Africa see NATO as a threat Sure, but that doesn't mean they should. They can see the US as a threat, or an actor such as France. But the Polish army is unlikely to be bullying them around. It's also impossible to please. When Western countries didn't step in to conflicts and genocide they're criticized, when they do they're criticized. Should they have just let the Serbs do whatever in Kosovo? > NATO as a beloved and welcomed knight in shining armor, and realize that it's just a tool of war. I've never seen it that way. It's a tool of war and tools of war are also tools of defense. My country is not a NATO member.
- foverzar 4y ago
  > This is utter nonsense It simply doesn't correlate with your worldview, that is why you are being all dismissive. > Unlike Russia, NATO isn't invading members in order to force them to join. Note the "in order to force them to join" clarification. Cuz one can't say simply say "NATO doesn't invade", right? Why would NATO spend additional resources, bother with citizenships, social infrastructure or take on any additional responsibilities, when they can just instill a loyal government? E.g. why would the US bother with providing Iraqis the perks of American citizenship, when they can just order the new government whatever they want. IMO, the pattern of invading faraway states, crushing them, and then leaving without taking any responsibility, after establishing a puppet state colony, is a much more evil thing than squabbles between neighbors over who gets to be responsible for some territory and who will have to spend money on healthcare for people on it. > Countries are begging NATO to let them in so that they have some measure of protection against Russia. > NATO is not some "supremacist idea" Riiiiight, "begging", but its definitely 100% "not supremacist". Hard to argue with that kind of a worldview. I've linked the list of NATOs military operations somewhere above. Can you tell me how much of them have anything to do with Russia and how much seem suspiciously aligned with someone's (not pointing fingers) political and economic goals? > Ukraine did not seek to join NATO due to the US asking it to, it sought to join NATO to defend against Russia after overthrowing Putin's puppet in 2014 The US had started pushing Ukraine towards NATO much earliear than that, actually. At first it happened during Bush administration, which caused one of the first huge alienations of a newborn Russian Federation from NATO. Look it up, it's just a self-fulfilling prophesy that had been brewing for a rather long time. Also, just note how mundanely you talk of the regime change and "puppets". You don't see how that could be related to local security infrastructure deterioration, do you? I wonder what you make of the US politicians publicly promising Ukraine protection and NATO membership, but then declining it as soon as it became a place they'd need to actually defend, rather than a place where they can deploy their infrastructure, conveniently just after the INF treaty had been dissolved.

kibwen 4y ago

This is utter nonsense. Unlike Russia, NATO isn't invading members in order to force them to join. Countries are begging NATO to let them in so that they have some measure of protection against Russia. NATO is not some "supremacist idea" of who gets to use military force, it is a reaction to Russian aggression. Ukraine did not seek to join NATO due to the US asking it to, it sought to join NATO to defend against Russia after overthrowing Putin's puppet in 2014. Quit your bullshit.

digikazi 4y ago
NATO was quite happy to bomb Serbia and Libya, to name but two.
- jemmyw 4y ago
  NATO operated in Libya to implement a security council resolution, meaning it had at least the tacit approval of China and Russia as well.
  - foverzar 4y ago
    > NATO operated in Libya to implement a security council resolution, meaning it had at least the tacit approval of China and Russia as well. The criticism towards NATO in Lybia mostly boils down to NATO overstepping and going out of scope of the resolution. And clearly, it's not Russia, China or the US who should decide for Africa. What about Syria? The US is relying on NATO infrastructure for its operations there. Who invited them? What about Yugoslavia? This is an especially noteworthy case, judging by how hard the western propaganda tries to erase it from history. Just ask a Serbian whether they feel like NATOs depleted uranium munitions felt "defensive", or what they think of the narrative that current conflict in Ukraine is the first serious conflict in Europe since WWII. Srsly, what is it going to take to drop an idiotic supremacist image of NATO as a beloved and welcomed knight in shining armor, and realize that it's just a tool of war. Probably quite a lot, since it was born in a culture with a history of inventing supremacist ideologies, deaf to an idea that some might not really see it as a universal good, but rather as just another quasi-empire, minding it's own political and economic benefit before anything else. Quite a lot of people in Eurasia and Africa see NATO as a threat and don't feel like being ochlos to NATO's demos. But what do these subhuman unenlightened savages understand, am I right? /s
    - jemmyw 4y ago
      There isn't some separate NATO army that does things at the behest of its members. Sometimes the members of NATO decide to do things with their militaries, alone or together. They have clubbed together on some equipment standards too. But the existence or not of NATO as a defensive alliance wouldn't have prevented those countries from intervening in those situations. Turkey could have provided those bases for the US to use in Syria NATO or not. Indeed, they didn't just provide them because they're NATO, the US still had to make an agreement. I think the Syrian Kurds were pretty keen on the US being there, and the Kosovo Albanians in Yugoslavia. If I recall that one correctly, Russia also sent a peacekeeping force at the same time. > Quite a lot of people in Eurasia and Africa see NATO as a threat Sure, but that doesn't mean they should. They can see the US as a threat, or an actor such as France. But the Polish army is unlikely to be bullying them around. It's also impossible to please. When Western countries didn't step in to conflicts and genocide they're criticized, when they do they're criticized. Should they have just let the Serbs do whatever in Kosovo? > NATO as a beloved and welcomed knight in shining armor, and realize that it's just a tool of war. I've never seen it that way. It's a tool of war and tools of war are also tools of defense. My country is not a NATO member.
foverzar 4y ago
> This is utter nonsense It simply doesn't correlate with your worldview, that is why you are being all dismissive. > Unlike Russia, NATO isn't invading members in order to force them to join. Note the "in order to force them to join" clarification. Cuz one can't say simply say "NATO doesn't invade", right? Why would NATO spend additional resources, bother with citizenships, social infrastructure or take on any additional responsibilities, when they can just instill a loyal government? E.g. why would the US bother with providing Iraqis the perks of American citizenship, when they can just order the new government whatever they want. IMO, the pattern of invading faraway states, crushing them, and then leaving without taking any responsibility, after establishing a puppet state colony, is a much more evil thing than squabbles between neighbors over who gets to be responsible for some territory and who will have to spend money on healthcare for people on it. > Countries are begging NATO to let them in so that they have some measure of protection against Russia. > NATO is not some "supremacist idea" Riiiiight, "begging", but its definitely 100% "not supremacist". Hard to argue with that kind of a worldview. I've linked the list of NATOs military operations somewhere above. Can you tell me how much of them have anything to do with Russia and how much seem suspiciously aligned with someone's (not pointing fingers) political and economic goals? > Ukraine did not seek to join NATO due to the US asking it to, it sought to join NATO to defend against Russia after overthrowing Putin's puppet in 2014 The US had started pushing Ukraine towards NATO much earliear than that, actually. At first it happened during Bush administration, which caused one of the first huge alienations of a newborn Russian Federation from NATO. Look it up, it's just a self-fulfilling prophesy that had been brewing for a rather long time. Also, just note how mundanely you talk of the regime change and "puppets". You don't see how that could be related to local security infrastructure deterioration, do you? I wonder what you make of the US politicians publicly promising Ukraine protection and NATO membership, but then declining it as soon as it became a place they'd need to actually defend, rather than a place where they can deploy their infrastructure, conveniently just after the INF treaty had been dissolved.