you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -44 points 1 year ago (38 children)
  • [+] 26 points 1 year ago (14 children)
  • [+] -6 points 1 year ago (9 children)
  • [+] 5 points 1 year ago (8 children)
  • [+] -2 points 1 year ago (8 children)
  • [+] 6 points 1 year ago (7 children)
  • [+] 0 points 1 year ago (6 children)
  • [+] 4 points 1 year ago (5 children)
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago

    What war? NATO isn’t at war. But if you’re in Europe, sooner or later, you’re going to be fighting Russia. They’re not going to stop at Donbass.

    Said who, some experts based on a blackrock report written by McKinsley and edited by lockheed?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago

    I don't really care. "Eastern propaganda" you're the one sucking lockheed martin dick, asshole. It would be funny if scums like you weren't organising the salvaging of our social systems in order to buy bombs to defend ourself against big bad russia.

    Russia, who, again, wouldn't even be its own country if it wasn't for the nato. Putin, trump, the european leaders, they're all on the same side. The genocide. Yours.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [+] -8 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    No, they are an alliance for defense. Nothing peaceful about it, they will fuck you up with military force if you mess with any one of the US's economic interests.

    There, FTFY

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 8 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [+] -8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    The point is that "NATO" is an umbrella term for "US's interests" or "US military".
    The US can and absolutely does wreck shit up for the sake of their own interests, regardless of international law. "NATO" only comes into play when either other countries are willing to step in or the US might need a veneer of legitimacy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 7 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

    Okay, can you think of a reason Russia "only" attacked* Georgia and Ukraine in the recent past and not say Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania?

    As a small nation you have two options:

    1. Build alliances and search senior partners
    2. Die

    * attacked as in boots on the ground. They engaging in cyber attacks and other forms of physical and online sabotage in many European countries

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    NATO is the only reason Russia is its own country in the first place

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Okay, even if the Soviet Union still existed if NATO did not form, how would that be a good thing? You know they conquered the countries like Poland? They actively fought for their freedom. And even today you can see that Russia tires to expand its sphere of influence using force and violence. They are an oppressor, not an ally.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -12 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Poor Russia, had no agency at all. Had no choice but to become an ultranationalist shithole because NATO forced them to.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago

    That's the very idea of a dictature, yes. Americans had more agency in the gazans genocide (since, you know, they designate themself as a democracy) than russians, who at least know they're in a strongmen dictature.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 41 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Are you aware of the actual reason that NATO bombed Yugoslavia?

    Oh, .ml, that explains it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] -12 points 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [–] 38 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    Given that you're on a two day old account, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

    .ml is notoriously run by, and has a large population of tankies - people who support China and Russia, and defend or deny their countless atrocities. I.E. people who deny the Tiananmen Square Massacre, and say Russia's invasion of Ukraine and all the war crimes they've committed are justified. Basically, anything done by a government that opposes the US is considered a good thing, no matter how evil.

    Edit: Adding what Brucethemoose said into my comment directly because its important. Being critical of the US or NATO doesn't make you a tankie. The problem is excusing genocide because it was commited by someone outside NATO or the US allies.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    And to be clear, the larger part of non-tankie Lemmy is just fine acknowledging recent, heinous western atrocities, though doesn’t give NATO quite as much thought I suppose (in lieu of the raging dumpster fires in our own backyards).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -5 points 1 year ago (9 children)
  • [+] 10 points 1 year ago (7 children)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    The rest of the world were willing participants in Afghanistan. The US didn't have to do anything to "force" them.

    Iraq and Afghanistan are interlinked stories, but the way they played out with world support was very, very different.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)