• SoyViking [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 hours ago

    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”.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      6 hours ago

      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.

    • mathemachristian [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      9 hours ago

      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”

    • davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      edit-2
      11 hours ago

      Not NATO, countries that just so happened to be members of NATO for completely unrelated reasons don’t even worry about it.

  • mienshao@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    11 hours ago

    Gotta love 2025. Is this an alt-right post or an alt-left post? No one can tell. Horseshoe theory, etc etc.

    • anon@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      27 minutes ago

      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.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      6 hours ago

      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.

      • rbesfe@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        3 hours ago

        This is an untrue oversimplification, probably written by someone who is terminally online

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 hours ago

          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.

    • YappyMonotheist@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 hours ago

      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.

    • uuldika@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      6 hours ago

      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.

      • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        6 hours ago

        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.

        • RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 minutes ago

          How many of their NATO neighbors have they attacked vs their non-NATO neighbors? There’s a reason countries want to join it lol

          • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            5 hours ago

            Dunno, I live in the US. Surely you can look it up, no? Nice 2 month old, 1 comment account, by the way.

            • Marei@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              3 hours ago

              Well, congratulations then! You made me write my first comment in response to your Russian propaganda. Are you aware that joining NATO is voluntary while “joining” the Russian empire is not? How does ex-Soviet Union countries wanting to protect themselves from Russia equal NATO “encircling” Russia? The invasion of Ukraine demonstrates the necessity quite clearly and it isn’t even Russia’s only attack on a neighbour. Are you a Trump fan as well or do you just parrot Putin’s regime?

              • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                3 hours ago

                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.