Never ask a nato supporter who Adolf heusinger was.
Nope.
Those questions are not tough for them at all. The propaganda has it covered and they will give some version of “we tried our gosh darned best to bring the savages freedom and democracy but their barbarian culture was simply too primitive”.
Its pretty hard at this conjunction in time, they used to be able to get away justifying these interventions with the “stopping genocide” card, but they can’t say that now that they’re enabling Israel. The facade of virtuousness has fallen.
What about Gaza?
What is NATOs involvement there?
The main NATO member countries are backing Israel, with money, weaponry, and promises of defense. This happened when the US invaded Iraq also.
Yes, but individual countries supporting Israel by eiter finance, ammo or just providing Air defense doesn’t make this a NATO operation just because they are in NATO.
The US is making full usage of the bases in Europe to support Israel, without them it would have been logistically very hard; short of like the invasion of Afghanistan without the collaboration of Pakistan. These US bases fall under the US European Command (EUCOM) but are integrated into NATO’s architecture. The European NATO members, not only provide the bases, but subsidize the costs (e.g., infrastructure, utilities), therefore, becoming participants with the Israeli Campaign.
Countries can have some say. Spain, for instance, blocked some US airplanes destined to some campaigns, but it is just symbolic since the US just need not to declare the intention (or lie) and that is the end of the restrictions. It is not like Spain is going to inspect the vast amount of tonnage the US military is moving through Spanish ports, let alone between US bases. US could easily avoid the bases in Spain and use instead Germany, Italy and Morocco, but why would do so, when you can just humiliate your vassals in their face and have no repercussion at all… same as blowing up Nord Stream 2.
every single country in that T-word organization (I leave figuring out what the “T” word is as an exercise for the reader) provides material support, whether directly or indirectly, to the settler-colonial entity.
- it is not true that every single county does that
- the ones that do, do it as individual states. Same as backing Ukraine is the decision of every individual state rather than a NATO project
- NATO is not a Tennis Organization. :-)
- it is not true that every single county does that
For starters, every single member has diplomatic ties with the settler-colonial entity (save for Turkey’s intermittent “severing ties” posturing), that alone is substantial material support. Now, I’m not going to list every single notable contribution to the settler-colonial entity for each member state in that organization, so please point out which member state does not contribute to the baby-and-women-murdering sex offender haven “state”.
- the ones that do, do it as individual states
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_211209.htm
NATO and Israel have worked together for almost 30 years, cooperating in domains such as science and technology, counter terrorism, civil preparedness, countering weapons of mass destruction and women, peace and security. Over the last year cooperation has grown, with NATO welcoming Israel’s intention to strengthen the naval interoperability by recognising Israel as a partner for NATO’s Operation Sea Guardian, and Israel’s Defence Force military medical academy now serving as a unique asset for NATO’s Partnership Training and Education Centres community.
And even if that was somehow true, which it isn’t, it still doesn’t change the fact that every single country in that T-word organization provides material support.
Well if you count decades old recognition of a state as a support of what is going currently in Gaza, i will not spend time to find any examples because on that premise you would be factually correct, but your premise is wrong. Past recognition of a state does not automatically mean support for its actions, which you seem to imply.
Coopertation on anything else with NATO not really adressing the point, as we are discussing the situation in Gaza specifically, not Israels ties with NATO in general.
Why do redditors read the first sentence, somehow completely take away the wrong information from the first sentence and then proceed to ignore the rest of the comment as they refuse to elaborate their position?
For starters, every single member has diplomatic ties with the settler-colonial entity. Two things that are explicitly clear here:
1.This does not only equate to “past recognition”. Diplomatic ties entail cooperation and a relationship between two states that facilitiates, among other things, trade and transport agreements and citizen travel between the two states. This is diplomacy 101. That said, it should not be hard to understand why having diplomatic ties to a settler-colonial entity counts as support for the genocide of the Palestinians.
- This is not the only point being made here. This is why I prefaced with “For starters”. The fact of the matter is every NATO member does indeed provide material support to the vermin psycho-“state” full of grown men posing to the camera wearing clothes of the children and women they murder/violate.
Also, NATO ties to the entity is PERTINENT to the point that NATO members and NATO itself provides material support to the entity to slaughter Palestinians. It’s not hard to understand from the excerpt what “30 years of cooperation on domains such as science and technology, counter-terrorism” etc… means. I just provided proof that material support from NATO was and is still happening, straight from NATO.
Instead of engaging in deeply unserious one-note retorts that only serve to prove your lack of comprehension skills and insane mental gymnastics, point out which member state does not contribute to the baby-and-women-murdering sex offender haven “state”.
Redditors?
About diplomacy 101 My country has diplomatic relations with russia for example. We do however not cooperate in most aspects. In fact we are on the list of their enemies.
My country also has diplomatic ties with israel. And we do cooperate. Mostly in education. My country is also a NATO member without a single US soldier or base present. Also opposed to current Gaza events.
Vermin psycho state is a bit too much for me. I’d just stop the discussion here.
Never ask an EU supporter about why their own country doesn’t get to decide things for its self
Zing! 😆
What do you not like about the EU and do you think Germany should leave the EU?
What do you not like about the EU
centralizing control is bad. It gives less freedom and autonomy to the common man.
A citizen of a country in the EU votes for their parliment or congress or whatever to decide things, but then the EU parliment can just override whatever your elected officals decide. Doesn’t that piss you off? Imagine an entire continent being an HOA neighborhood. Where the HOA gets to dictate everything you do with your own house that they don’t own, don’t pay bills for and don’t maintain for you… and that’s a metaphor for the EU
I wouldn’t just get rid of the EU if I had my way, I’d de-centralize as much authority as possible down to every town being a self governing local community.
But with a constituion of rights that are always off the table for any debate.
Full bodily autonomy, free speech, gun ownership, right to privacy, right to remain silent, right to a fair trial with legal representation…competent legal represenation that won’t pressure you into admitting anything…basically a set of rights that allow you to do what you want with your own things and your own land
If you have a problem with gun ownership. You won’t once you’ve had to deal with someone invading your home. What? you think calling the police is going to stop a home invader from hurting you?
“hey I just called the police!”
“oh shit! you got me! Guess I’ll just sit here and wait to be arrested”
I can understand why local governing is nice. You always feel more involved and represented when you actually know the people in your government. But the European Parliament is elected as well. I would personally support making it more important and taking some authority away from the commission and council. But other than that, I am actually relatively happy with the EU.
It brought many great things with it, especially free trade and free travel. If you are a citizen of any EU country and move to another EU country, you have almost the same rights as a full citizen of that country. I just love that. Crossing a border between EU countries is like crossing a state border. This makes the lives of so many people so much easier. The same applies for the many streamlined regulations.
In addition, I mostly also like the rulings of the EU. I lt often stops harmful laws from passing (especially things like censorship). Sadly, some countries just ignore EU law without much consequences, which has to be stopped in my opinion.
In some way, I think the EU actually gives some more power to the people. If you imagine Austria passing a low, the world may ignore that. But if the EU passes a law, it is important and the US or China must pay attention.
And I don’t really know what you are talking about gun control here. I would never support wide spread gun ownership, since I personally really hate terrorism and enjoy the low gun violence rates. It obviously happens, but much less than in the US.
NATO wasn’t involved in Iraq were they?
Not NATO, countries that just so happened to be members of NATO for completely unrelated reasons don’t even worry about it.
Bush desperately tried to tie saddam to al-qaeda so he could trigger article 5 by claiming 9/11 was an act of aggression. That didn’t pan out but the empires most loyal dogs still went with the us on their massmurder campaign. See the “coalition of the willing”
You forgot Poland. — GWB
Fair enough, nobody in Poland seem to even remember this happened.
Nope. Because Iraq isn’t on the North Atlantic. Did OP ever look at a map?
What do you think OP meant when he listed all those countries not in nato?
With all that is happening in the world, someone decides to spend time to make a meme about NATO being a bad guy?
Well yeah, considering they are the bad guy, NATO is nothing but an organization for the furtherance of US empire led expansionism
And what happens if we don’t stop it soon? They will attack… Russia or something?
They’ll continue to kill by the hundreds of thousands in the middle east.
Given that NATO is actively supporting the worst thing going on the world (as usual), yes?
That list of nations is very short.
Is certainly longer than Russia list, but they’re the baddies right?
Ah, Yugoslavia. How dare anyone disturb that genocide.
There was intense conflict along ethnic lines on both sides. NATO didn’t intervene to “stop a genocide,” it bombed hundreds of state-owned factories and murdered over 2000 civilians (including 300 Albanians, which NATO claimed to be “protecting”). The real drive was to destroy a nation that dared to be a part of the Non-Aligned Movement, and make them subservient to western interests, opened up for foreign plundering.
The ethnic violence was horrible, but NATO didn’t really fix it, it took advantage of it as a reason to get involved and achieve the aims of western powers economically.
Why doesn’t NATO disturb the current genocide in Gaza?
So your issue isn’t them stopping a genocide but not stopping more genocides?
He is pointing out the obvious contradiction on NATOs justification on their war crimes.
If they were worried about s genocide in yugoslavia and forced to intervene, why aren’t they doing the same with israel? Have you asked yourself this question?
Of all the things, you decided to defend that scumbag. He and his cronies were one of the primary agitators that caused the war. Even if he himself didn’t order a genocide, he actively militarily supported the Bosnian Serbs that caused one. And say what you want but the bombing did stop the active ethnic cleansing happening in Kosovo.
Fix your link
AFAICT, there’s nothing wrong with them.
Neither one of the two links seem to support your two claims. I gave you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you pasted the wrong link(s). shrug.
Yeah, who do they think they are? NATO?
Bombs were falling on civilian targets nowhere near Kosovo. Various bridges, schools, hospitals, a chemical plant in Pančevo that almost destroyed the entire city, the Chinese embassy, a bomb fragment fell literally in my family’s garden. Hundreds of civilians died, my grandma almost impaled on a table from a bomb shockwave and the glass shattered onto the cradle I was in (I was 1 year old at the time), but luckily my mom placed protection around me just in case. This was on the far north of Serbia.
To be clear, OP is a tankie who shouldn’t be given any attention or a platform (I checkes their post history), but the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 was a campaign that caused untold suffering to countless civilians (be it in injuries, deaths, or just going through every day not knowing whether you and your loved ones will be alive tomorrow) that had absolutely nothing to do with Kosovo, something that left scars in society that are still felt. It was not simply “disturbing a genocide”. Not to mention that it was an attack launched without the approval of the UN.
Gotta love 2025. Is this an alt-right post or an alt-left post? No one can tell. Horseshoe theory, etc etc.
Anyone with a working brain cell can tell bud.
The right is pro-NATO, as NATO is the main millitant arm propping up western imperialism, and the left is anti-NATO for the same reasons. There’s no “alt-left,” lol.
Removed by mod
In what way is it untrue? It’s a bit simplified, but I wouldn’t really consider many western right-wingers to be anti-NATO nor any leftists pro-NATO.
Trump is constantly talking about leaving NATO…? And the o haven’t really heard anything anti NATO from the left except the tankies.
Trump will never leave NATO, it’s a common pattern for him to threaten to leave things to get a more favorable deal, which largely fails to be fair. As far as being anti-NATO as a Leftist stance, it’s an extremely standard take to be against the main millitant arm of western imperialism. It isn’t just the Marxists that are against NATO.
Anyone against NATO is against Western imperialism and would be considered a “leftist” by Western standards (just humane and ethical for the rest of the world). I don’t see what can be misunderstood here.
Plenty of far-right people would be leftist then. Interesting
You’re just saying words now, lol.
Breaking News: Local Lemming Discovers Speech
should do an AMA on how long it took you
Yeah, true. I have observed that too in the last few years. If you see someone saying we should not support Ukraine there is a 50/50 chance they are far-left or far-right. Pretty impossible to tell in most cases.
I have never met anyone who supports NATO
What a blessed life 🥲
I can’t seem to find anyone in real life who doesn’t.
🧢
So you have never met Eastern Europeans?
Or basically the entirety of the Western world? Lol.
I actually did, but people don’t normally have conversations about why NATO is a good/bad idea on first encounter 😆
So you also haven’t met anyone disapproving of NATO?
Me too comrade
I support NATO, in the sense that if NATO dissolved Europe would get eaten like a three-course meal by Russia. Ukraine shows that all too clearly. it has many problems, though.
There’s no evidence of this, though. Scaremongering about Russia taking Paris and whatnot has no economic backing. Russia has been clear about why it invaded Ukraine, it wants to demillitarize it as it was cozying up to NATO, and NATO has been encircling Russia for decades. If NATO didn’t exist, there would be no reason for the Russo-Ukrainian war to begin with, as Russia doesn’t stand to gain much, if anything, economically.
How many of their NATO neighbors have they attacked vs their non-NATO neighbors? There’s a reason countries want to join it lol
Why do you think Russia invaded Ukraine? Like, what is their primary goal. The impetus that drove them to approve the invasion.
Secondly, what do you think the functioning role of NATO is?
They wanted to prevent them from joining because they couldn’t bully them if they managed to join. I think that answers for both.
So the underlying, material reason for why you think Russia invaded Ukraine, was because they wanted to “bully” Ukraine? And that NATO is just an international “anti-bullying” alliance? No, lmao.
NATO is an alliance of imperialist nations. They band together, agreeing to each exploit their own corner. The biggest players are the US Empire, as well as the former hegemons Germany, the UK, and France. The other NATO members play along so that they can ride along on this system of monopoly capitalism expropriating vast wealth from South America, Africa, Southeast Asia, and more. If countries go against NATO desires economically, they get bombed, like Yugoslavia, Libya, etc.
NATO promised Gorbachev that they wouldn’t expand eastward, decades ago. This is because originally, NATO was an anti-communist alliance. However, with the fall of the USSR, the west needed a new enemy, so they stuck with Russia even after Russia tried to join NATO. With NATO building up in Ukraine, following the Euromaidan coup of 2014 cementing the Ukrainian Nationalists as the leaders of Ukraine, and their relentless shelling of the donbass region, Russia invaded as it didn’t feel like it wanted a belligerent neighbor, and decided to take pre-emptive action.
The entire invasion never would have happened without NATO.
You’ve quite rudely ignored my question even though I promptly answered yours.
Why do you think Russia invaded Ukraine? Like, what is their primary goal. The impetus that drove them to approve the invasion.
Because they want to become a global power once again. That is their dream. They want to be imperialists themselves, but unfortunately for them, they have failed to do so. In the past decades they have poked their noses into Africa and the Middle East, with some success. But simultaneously they have lost their grip on regions they previously considered to be under their imperialist umbrella. It started with Georgia, which they solved with violence. Next it was Ukraine, and then Syria. And then all the unrest in Belarus. They got spooked that their imperialist dream was failing, so they went in to change the regime in Ukraine. But that didn’t work out as they planned. And to top that, they also lost their foothold in Syria completely. And now, just recently, they are losing Azerbaijan too.
Secondly, what do you think the functioning role of NATO is?
Honestly, it is to protect US geopolitical interests in Europe. Making Europe depend on the US for its defense. But it is not that bad of a deal for Europe, as it keeps the peace (in “western” Europe).
Russia was never “imperialist” in the way the west is. They never had an Empire as the Soviet Union. Russia cannot become an empire by invading other countries, imperialism functions by massive financial capital to extract from the global south. Russia doesn’t have the capital for that, and is more industrialized than western countries that need it to stay afloat.
As for NATO, it’s to ensure western imperialism stays intact. The US is the main beneficiary, but western Europe participates because they also profit from brutal exploitation of the global south.
They never had an Empire as the Soviet Union.
But they did. That’s why Mao called them social imperialists.
As for NATO, it’s to ensure western imperialism stays intact. The US is the main beneficiary, but western Europe participates because they also profit from brutal exploitation of the global south.
That just brings into question how NATO is a threat to Russia then? The only way that would be true is that either a) Russia sees them as imperialist competition, or b) the threat is that Russia can’t attack its neighbors without retribution.
I acknowledge the argument NATO is encircling Russia. To what extent does Ukraine differ from other actions by Russia such as Georgia in 2008? Which sorts of actions are not resistance to NATO encircling?
Ukraine is an interesting case, due to the Euromaidan coup in 2014 leading to the nationalists taking control. Prior to Euromaidan, relations with Russia weren’t so bad, actually.
yeah, they could have been like Belarus!
This thing that keeps happening to a lot of the countries around Russia that are not in NATO? Completely wouldn’t happen if no one was in NATO.
Sure.
If NATO didn’t exist, there would be no reason for the Russo-Ukrainian war to begin with, as Russia doesn’t stand to gain much, if anything, economically.
What reason do you think is behind the war?
Removed by mod
Dunno, I live in the US. Surely you can look it up, no? Nice 2 month old, 1 comment account, by the way.
Removed by mod
Nothing I said was wrong, nor does that make it “Russian propaganda.” The RF has been clear, they oppose NATO encirclement. Gorbachev was promised decades ago that NATO wouldn’t expand eastward, yet it has over the decades. NATO is used primarily as a threat towards countries that don’t let the west economically dominate them, be it the USSR to Iran to Libya to Yugoslavia to the modern Russian Federation.
Joining NATO is indeed voluntary, yes. Russia even tried to join it a couple decades ago, and was denied. Russia was barred entry from the imperialist alliance, as if they were allowed in, NATO could not be used as a threat against them to force them to open up their economy more. The ex-soviet now-NATO states faced immense economic crisis and right-wing takeover due to the chaos that ensued when socialism was ended and the USSR dissolved, making them very western-friendly.
No, I’m not a Trump supporter, I’m a communist. I strongly oppose western imperialism, and based on the evidence we have, there’s no proof that Russia intends on taking on all of Europe. This is just scaremongering to fuel the millitary industrial complex and justify the perpetuation of NATO even after the collapse of the USSR, which it was formed to fight.
Either Russia is too weak to take Ukraine and thus NATO isn’t even necessary, or it’s strong enough but uninterested in total war and is happy with its level of involvement. The former means NATO isn’t even needed as Russia would be too weak, the latter means NATO isn’t needed as Russia has no plans to expand, nor does it have any economic basis for it.
I think it’s very telling that you can’t actually dispute any of my points, you just call me Russian and a Trump supporter for stating the standard leftist line on NATO and the Russo-Ukrainian War.
I fully support Europe being destroyed
Why?
The continent?
