Arrogant liberals always assume they are immune to propaganda. Here you are supporting US imperialism and hegemony, the same things they accuse other nations of doing.
Also: “yes, I support the military budgets because I’m convinced Russia is an imperialist aggressor nation that we need to defend ourselves from” was the justification for Germany entering WW1. Have we learnt nothing from history?
Because the most upvoted one thinks NATO is a good thing, but since one unreliable country cannot be kicked out, it should be replaced with another alliance with slight changes. This comment just says NATO BAD.
NATO is bad tho, because it allows the US to draw other countries into our imperialist wars and allows its members to threaten non-members with reletive impunity.
To quote Blinken “If you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu”. A NATO without America could be benign tho.
I wouldn’t say it’s that bad. NATO is only defensive, so other members have no obligation to join US wars. I admit, NATO conditions can be used to pressure members, but since everyone is hating attack on Iran or Venezuela, the influence isn’t that big. And sometimes the members fight even against each other in proxy wars, for example US vs Turkey in Syria.
Nato is the core organizing instrument of western imperialism. Nato is like Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense shield. It’s easy to look at it and say, 'Well how could anyone object to a tool of defense??’ But if you know anything about war then you know that establishing an unbreakable defensive capability is what allows an imperial army to slaughter their weaker targets with impunity.
I’m not co-signing GodlessCommie’s point. But we gotta ask: did you like Vietnam? Iraq? Afghanistan? Korea? Venezuela? Nicaragua? Georgia? Libya? Ukraine? Gaza? Because arguably, all of this shit rests upon the conditions established by NATO and US imperialism. So… It’s not unreasonable to ask whether NATO has actually fostered peace or just fostered peace for the people who wage wars.
It might surprise you, but I do not actually get paid to post comments on Lemmy for living, so I am allowed to focus on the part of the argument that I think is strangest.
The author of that comment was free to reply in turn by something along the lines of, “Fine, then drop Ukraine from the list, because I don’t need it to make my point.” Instead, they doubled down that it belongs there.
I wrote a long answer and then accidentally hit the back button and don’t have the patience to retype it.
The short version is that Vladimir Putin is responsible for the invasion of Ukraine. I don’t want any confusion about that.
NATO’s influence was that the US has been advancing against Russia for decades even after their country collapsed, and it was obviously nakedly escalatory. Combined with the US is overall foreign policy, which has always been imperial, we’ve acted as though putting a gun to someone’s head and telling them to stay cool was an actual way of calming things rather than the exact opposite.
I’m not saying that a version of NATO couldn’t have done what it claims to do. But that’s never been the version that has existed.
If by “advancing against Russia” you mean that a bunch of countries were extremely eager to sign up when given the chance, then arguably its Russia’s own fault that they felt the need to join a defense alliance so that their sovereignty would not be threatened in the future. And given that Ukraine has been invaded multiple times by Russia exactly because it does not have a NATO mutual defense guarantee, it sure looks like they had the right idea.
NATO should be dissolved, it’s an old relic of us imperialism that has no place in society
yes. as a geniune western citizen typing with my western democratic hands, i also support dissolution of nato.
Not everyone outflanking you to the left is a Russian agent.
Arrogant liberals always assume they are immune to propaganda. Here you are supporting US imperialism and hegemony, the same things they accuse other nations of doing.
no, i am just being sarcastic towards stupid commies.
No need to be rude.
Also: “yes, I support the military budgets because I’m convinced Russia is an imperialist aggressor nation that we need to defend ourselves from” was the justification for Germany entering WW1. Have we learnt nothing from history?
Arrogant clanker-adjacents feigning emotion when their propaganda is called out.
The most downvoted and most upvoted comments, both say the same thing.
People are werid.
Because the most upvoted one thinks NATO is a good thing, but since one unreliable country cannot be kicked out, it should be replaced with another alliance with slight changes. This comment just says NATO BAD.
NATO is bad tho, because it allows the US to draw other countries into our imperialist wars and allows its members to threaten non-members with reletive impunity.
To quote Blinken “If you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu”. A NATO without America could be benign tho.
I wouldn’t say it’s that bad. NATO is only defensive, so other members have no obligation to join US wars. I admit, NATO conditions can be used to pressure members, but since everyone is hating attack on Iran or Venezuela, the influence isn’t that big. And sometimes the members fight even against each other in proxy wars, for example US vs Turkey in Syria.
GoddlessCommie’s take is valid.
Nato is the core organizing instrument of western imperialism. Nato is like Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense shield. It’s easy to look at it and say, 'Well how could anyone object to a tool of defense??’ But if you know anything about war then you know that establishing an unbreakable defensive capability is what allows an imperial army to slaughter their weaker targets with impunity.
I’m not co-signing GodlessCommie’s point. But we gotta ask: did you like Vietnam? Iraq? Afghanistan? Korea? Venezuela? Nicaragua? Georgia? Libya? Ukraine? Gaza? Because arguably, all of this shit rests upon the conditions established by NATO and US imperialism. So… It’s not unreasonable to ask whether NATO has actually fostered peace or just fostered peace for the people who wage wars.
Could you explain exactly how NATO and US imperialism led to Russia invading Ukraine?
Why do you ignore every other conflict in the comment above?
It might surprise you, but I do not actually get paid to post comments on Lemmy for living, so I am allowed to focus on the part of the argument that I think is strangest.
The author of that comment was free to reply in turn by something along the lines of, “Fine, then drop Ukraine from the list, because I don’t need it to make my point.” Instead, they doubled down that it belongs there.
I wrote a long answer and then accidentally hit the back button and don’t have the patience to retype it.
The short version is that Vladimir Putin is responsible for the invasion of Ukraine. I don’t want any confusion about that.
NATO’s influence was that the US has been advancing against Russia for decades even after their country collapsed, and it was obviously nakedly escalatory. Combined with the US is overall foreign policy, which has always been imperial, we’ve acted as though putting a gun to someone’s head and telling them to stay cool was an actual way of calming things rather than the exact opposite.
I’m not saying that a version of NATO couldn’t have done what it claims to do. But that’s never been the version that has existed.
If by “advancing against Russia” you mean that a bunch of countries were extremely eager to sign up when given the chance, then arguably its Russia’s own fault that they felt the need to join a defense alliance so that their sovereignty would not be threatened in the future. And given that Ukraine has been invaded multiple times by Russia exactly because it does not have a NATO mutual defense guarantee, it sure looks like they had the right idea.