What Lefties Get Wrong About NATO

[Leo Gura]

20 minutes ago, Blackhawk said:

Sigh.

Nato raises their defense as a response to Russia raising their offense. (And also as a response to China raising their offense.)

Why do I even write here..

What Russian offenses triggered the expansion of NATO from the 90's through the 00's?

[Preety_India]

30 minutes ago, Blackhawk said:

Sigh.

Nato raises their defense as a response to Russia raising their offense. (And also as a response to China raising their offense.)

Why do I even write here..

NATO raises defense because it wants world domination, western world order and American hegemony. 

That's why it keeps bombing countries that it sees as a threat to world domination. 

This is all happening because of NATO. 

 

[Blackhawk]

2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

What Russian offenses triggered the expansion of NATO from the 90's through the 00's?

Because countries wanted to secure their security for the future, while they could.

The best time to become a Nato member is when there is deep peace and calm. So your country will be safe in the future.

For Ukraine it's way too late to become a Nato member, because of Russia's offenses.

It's maybe too late for Sweden and Finland to join too, because of Putin. We should have joined before the war, when there was peace and calm (except the war in eastern Ukraine).

So maybe we have to wait many years until Russia stops with the offenses, and then join.

So that's why countries join Nato when there's no offenses happening.

[Blackhawk]

6 minutes ago, Preety_India said:

NATO raises defense because it wants world domination, western world order and American hegemony. 

That's why it keeps bombing countries that it sees as a threat to world domination. 

This is all happening because of NATO. 

Omg. No. Just no. That's the conspiracy theory which Kremlin wants you to believe in.

[Fleetinglife]

On 3/6/2022 at 8:56 PM, DocWatts said:

The West really dropped the ball after the fall of the Soviet Union by not offering them the equivalent of a Marshal Plan, and helping with the transition to a democracy. 

Instead, multinationals were given free reign to practice Disaster Capitalism in Russia, and one can't help but see the current situation as a direct consequence of the West's greedy and short sighted behavior.

Yep you are probably right on that, but maybe they probably feared that they shouldn't help, invest too much of their resources into the effort or assist them in some comprehensive economic package aid or deliberate  investment way into their economy to help it back up and properly transition and solidify as smoothly as possible into a more prosperous, less corrupt Western style market one, because the country seemed to big and massive to them for them to seem to think that they would get any long term profitable returns and gains from doing that and unreliable to them in that regard in contrast to what Germany and Japan were before the war (economically culturally wise) and proved themselves to be very reliable allies after, and that the country seemed to them too much unpredictable overall in its politics, economy and overall in history and therefore a dangerous risk and attempted risky gamble for them to risk do so to invest much of their precise and scarce resource allocation to do so that they needed and wanted investing into other parts of the world more equally to incorporate them and more easily transformable and better prospects for growth countries into the new global economic system more generally, dispersely and equally, unlikely to succeed in pacifying it as long as it took Germany and Japan, because of it's massive size on the globe, it's past political culture up until that point, relationship with the West and America in general and the fact that it has a lot of nukes, which would be a risk giving it any sort of leverage to the West in that way, and perhaps at some point a fear from them that it developed long enough it would attempt to break free from the one-sided influence as a potentially dangerous near equal power which might cause problems for their vision that they then thought, so better to not help it a lot and keep it in constant subordinate position to the Western economies, markets and finances as long as possible and keep it in check with NATO in former countries near it so it will never rise up as dangerous destabilising influence and competitor for America's world vision and plans and the West's on the global stage, as it once was, might have been some of their thinking then regarding the question and future vision for the kind of Russia they would have liked to see. 

Well now because of that, progressives and some more pro-socialist oriented people and established parties in the West now think they are forced to, because of Russia, to, I say this with having a deep ironic stance towards this in mind, take the same ironic, German and most other Social-Democrats positions across most of western and central Europe at the time, in WWI, and vote for the equivalent of war credits then, for a pretty large and massive subsequent now yearly increase of government budget appropriated and allocated for defence spending for the military and NATO subsequently (I say very large and massive indeed in contrast prior to the same yearly ammount for that allocated from their overall GDPs for that sector up until this point) , not seeing the slightly deep historical parallels and irony in what they are attempting and purporting to wanting in doing now with that and hoping to achieve, as well as the one and the same then social-democrats believed then they would hope to achieve prior with using those mechanisms by towing the necessity of expanded war budgets line, later appropriated for the service and solidifying economic support and interests for the imperialist war and then later ironically not being able to be implemented in full as it was promised because of the utter economic devastation for Europe's economies and the political rightization turn of large parts of the populations, working to middle class, afterwards caused by and in ill begotten service to that devastating imperialist war for Europe's later development and influence of their economies globally, tying and linking them as reference point, Great Britain's financial sector hegemony in the world up until that point, as best example for that, to US finance and Wall Street and ceding to them the title and passing them stewardship of the most global influential financial power with their currency from 1917 and onwards. 

I don't see how some of those, justified and unjustified, meritable or not, in this point in history and the way today the economy in most developed countries and across the world is overall structured, we shall see, seeming stark historical parallels and prior precedents in European and world history, escapes them completely, as mentioning them at least as some considerations and precautions to take based on some real precedents from the past in history when similar decisions of this character have been made swiftly and almost as ad hoc without enough public dialogue, discussions of possible alternatives and relevant political opposition, public mobilisation and debate around them especially now due to their past precedents, of some of them at least, when they are fully on board and towing the line completely with some of those decisions that their governments are forwarding as a necessity of being taken, with no other possible routes and options now, for managing relations, approaching, deterring and containing Russia's overly aggressive, some would say triggered, moves and acts. 

Edited March 9, 2022 by Fleetinglife

[Preety_India]

1 minute ago, Blackhawk said:

Omg. No. Just no. That's the conspiracy theory which Kremlin wants you to believe in.

NATO is the real conspiracy. But sheep are always sheep. Anyway I won't go into the details of it. 

You don't know America, is all I'll say. 

 

[Blackhawk]

3 minutes ago, Preety_India said:

NATO is the real conspiracy. But sheep are always sheep. Anyway I won't go into the details of it. 

You don't know America, is all I'll say. 

You don't know Russia, is all I'll say.

Until a few days ago you even thought that Russia is a peaceful country.

[Preety_India]

Just now, Blackhawk said:

You don't know Russia, is all I'll say.

Until a few days ago you even thought that Russia is a peaceful country.

Russia is largely peaceful. I don't see Russia as a threat. I don't see Putin going around bombing every nook and cranny of the world the way NATO does. Russia and India can make a good partnership. Although US will be angry with India in that case. But Russia can be a good ally to India, a faithful ally,unlike the backstabbing US. 

 

[Blackhawk]

1 minute ago, Preety_India said:

Russia is largely peaceful. I don't see Russia as a threat. I don't see Putin going around bombing every nook and cranny of the world the way NATO does. Russia and India can make a good partnership. Although US will be angry with India in that case. But Russia can be a good ally to India, a faithful ally,unlike the backstabbing US. 

What you call "going around bombing every nook and cranny of the world" is actually UN mandated protection of civilians, stopping genocide, and fighting terrorism.

Anyway, I'm sorry that you are lost to a stupid conspiracy theory. Take care.

[Preety_India]

Just now, Blackhawk said:

What you call "going around bombing every nook and cranny of the world" is actually UN mandated protection of civilians, stopping genocide, and fighting terrorism.

Anyway, I'm sorry that you are lost to a stupid conspiracy theory. Take care.

These countries didn't do genocide. There is no factual evidence. Using terrorism and totalitarian regime is just an excuse for a bigger agenda. 

You're acting as though NATO is some beautiful humanitarian saviour of the world. I bet NATO has taken more lives by bombing than those countries did through whatever genocide. 

 

[JTL]

8 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

The US sets the rules of the Western world order which are of course most favorable to the US. Obviously this is not in Russia's interest.

Within the Western world order Putin's government would be overthrown because it doesn't serve US interests.

@Leo Gura when you say US lead does that mean that I as an Norwegian/ Norway benfit from that? read a bit about the world bank and IMF I guess they are a part of the US western hegemony. What are your thougts about the world bank and IMF? net postive for humankind?   

[Ananta]

15 minutes ago, Preety_India said:

Russia is largely peaceful.

Lol, because it's a dictatorship. If you aren't peaceful, you land in jail. If you protest, you land in jail. If you look at the police sideways, you land in jail. Get it? You aren't free.

[Leo Gura]

36 minutes ago, Blackhawk said:

Because countries wanted to secure their security for the future, while they could.

The best time to become a Nato member is when there is deep peace and calm. So your country will be safe in the future.

So now you understand why Putin had to attack Ukraine. He had to attack while he could, to secure his country's future.

The best time to attack Ukraine is when there is deep peace and calm. So your country will be safe in the future.

Your logic, not mine.

7 minutes ago, JTL said:

@Leo Gura when you say US lead does that mean that I as an Norwegian/ Norway benfit from that? read a bit about the world bank and IMF I guess they are a part of the US western hegemony. What are your thougts about the world bank and IMF? net postive for humankind?   

I don't know. These are extremely complex matters. There are no simple answers.

I know little about Norway.

[Hardkill]

2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

So now you understand why Putin had to attack Ukraine. He had to attack while he could, to secure his country's future.

The best time to attack Ukraine is when there is deep peace and calm. So your country will be safe in the future.

Your logic, not mine.

I don't know. These are extremely complex matters. There are no simple answers.

I know little about Norway.

Do you think that Obama or Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton would've been able to adeptly prevent this Russian-Ukraine war from happening if any one of then were our sitting US president given the fact that each one are undoubtedly political geniuses compared to Biden who was never as smart as any of them were?

[Blackhawk]

9 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

So now you understand why Putin had to attack Ukraine. He had to attack while he could, to secure his country's future.

The best time to attack Ukraine is when there is deep peace and calm. So your country will be safe in the future.

Your logic, not mine.

Ridiculous.

Ukraine and Nato would never be a offensive military threat to Russia. And Putin knows it.

[Ananta]

10 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

Biden who was never as smart as any of them were?

What do you expect from a puppet. 

[Heaven]

9 minutes ago, Blackhawk said:

Ridiculous.

Ukraine and Nato would never be a offensive military threat to Russia. And Putin knows it.

It’s more than just attack or defend. War can be in various of domains.

It’s simple. Putin felt that Russia is left behind so he decided to gain more power for the sake of his country. Like any other country does. 

[Leo Gura]

36 minutes ago, Blackhawk said:

Ridiculous.

Ukraine and Nato would never be a offensive military threat to Russia. And Putin knows it.

You have no idea the complexity involved here.

You are looking at this issue like a child. Black and white.

[Preety_India]

1 hour ago, Ananta said:

Lol, because it's a dictatorship. If you aren't peaceful, you land in jail. If you protest, you land in jail. If you look at the police sideways, you land in jail. Get it? You aren't free.

All of this won't happen if the people lovingly look at their dictator because there won't be any need to protest. I think the people of Russia were in love with Putin until now. Right now I'm not sure how they look at Putin. 

[Preety_India]

1 hour ago, Blackhawk said:

Ridiculous.

Ukraine and Nato would never be a offensive military threat to Russia. And Putin knows it.

Yes they are a threat to Russia. A massive threat in fact. 

NATO's agenda is not what it shows or appears to you. Is NATO going to admit to their bad faith actions in countries. No way. 

The metaphorical full form of NATO is = international coalition for world domination 

And its agenda is = destroy countries on the pretext of world peace. Or run them on Pro-US agenda. 

No wonder why US is such a big supporter of NATO. 

Basically US controls NATO. NATO like a puppy dog does what US wants. 

Putin knows all this. So Putin's biggest fear is NATO expansion and basically through this war, Putin is saying in no uncertain terms "back off NATO or else." 

NATO is like MONSANTO in many ways. Sweet on the outside, poison on the inside. 

 

Edited March 7, 2022 by Preety_India