The fact that NATO could have utterly destroyed the Russian military at any point since shortly after the end of the Soviet Union handily disproves it and the further fact that most NATO countries let their militaries atrophy after the break up of the Soviet Union also disproves it. Great propaganda doesn’t need to be rooted in truth, just establish an out-group who cause all the problems and hold the in-group blameless.
NATO is definitely taking its time then, it’s been around since 1949. Also the strategy of not ramping up military production until after your enemy attacks a neighbouring country, for the second time, seems like a risky one.
Well, NATO hasn’t carried out a single defensive operation in history, and has carried out (officially like in Libya or unofficially like in Iraq) several invasion wars.
Clearly not, as Russia is currently on war against Ukraine. What NATO excelled in was turning Libya from the highest developed country in Africa into a war-torn hellhole.
Would you happily agree to Mexico’s democratic right to host Russian military bases next to the US border if they so wanted? I’m from the EU myself, and it’s obvious to me how if that were the case, this would lead to escalation, so I wouldn’t Desire Russia to pursue a military alliance with Mexico.
People treated Russia as a superpower. They fucked up so bad they got successfully counter invaded by the country they were invading. They don’t have 5th Gen fighters and they can’t produce modern tanks. They’re refitting older tanks and giving troops fucking golf carts. They’ve depleted a ton of soviet stock and their air defense can’t even keep their oil infrastructure from exploding once a week. Prigozin nearly marched directly to Moscow with no resistance.
If NATO was planning to invade, they now factually know that Russia is a paper tiger and could take Moscow in days.
Also if NATO somehow forced putin to annihilate his own armor stocks and troops, then they are doing 5,000 iq illuminati bullshit and there’s nothing to be done anyway. I tag those people as NATO propagandists because they’re bigger western chauvinists than they even wish I was lol.
To be fair, Russia has geological challenges to maintaining an effective air defense; especially in the age of drones. It’s one of the reasons they couldn’t bring their whole air force to bear in the invasion of Ukraine: they had a huge amount of country to maintain coverage over.
The irony of course being that NATO doesn’t particularly have any interest in vast expanses of undeveloped potato fields giving away to frozen tundra, so they never had any impetus to invade. But Putin is now giving them one and at the same time demonstrating why the invasion would most likely be successful.
Which, as I understand the Russian military relationship with the Kremlin, came as a surprise to even Putin and would certainly incite some panic, renewed propaganda efforts, and saber rattling like we’ve been seeing him do lately.
Paper Tiger is the wrong word. Russia has a dangerous military but is in no way the powerhouse it portrayed itself before invading Ukraine. They had built a small core of a modern professional military that they used a couple of times to great effect but they acted like they’d done that to the whole military. Also, some parts of the Russian military ARE excellent: their electronic warfare capabilities are top notch. They also maintain advanced espionage capabilities.
Underspending because the US didn’t wanted a military strong Europe. Every time Europe has said anything about becoming a military power on its own the US has pushed against it. The US has wanted Europe as a place to put military bases and little more.
If you remove the US from NATO, the remaining Military Strength of the alliance would have struggled with the Russia Military prior to the Ukraine Invasion and absolutely would have been unable to launch a meaningful ground offensive into Russia.
Chronic under spending doesn’t mean no spending it just means that the size of the military has reduced, which if you don’t believe there is much chance of a land war makes financial sense. But it’s still got some pretty high-end tech. Meanwhile Russia has lost all there good military tech in a pointless war. So now Western tanks designed to fight other modern military vehicles are going up against stuff from the cold war. Multi-stage explosive shells designed to go up against metamaterial armour plating, are instead of being fired at pig iron, which is basically just rust held together with paint.
The assumption always was that if there was ever a war in Europe it would be a nuclear exchange, and therefore the size of your military wouldn’t really matter, it would be all about readiness and contingencies. They never assumed that a superpower would just sort of disintegrate on its own, and then lash out. That would be an absolutely ridiculous scenario, that only it has happened because the Russian military command were too scared of Putin to actually tell him the truth.
I still don’t really get why the spending has to increase if Russia’s military is so desolate. Why is there discussioneof mandatory military service in Germany if it’s simply to “defend” against an enemy that is too weak to actually be a threat?
that only it has happened because the Russian military command were too scared of Putin to actually tell him the truth.
Sorry, that is just motivated reasoning to frame Putin as an unstrategic maniac.
The Russians have shown great ability and resolve to switch to a wartime economy and ramp up military industrial production while Europe has struggled for years just to increase their artillery shell production. The belief is that if the war in Ukraine ends, it won’t take Russia long to replace their loses.
Me reminding you that a hypothesis needs to be disprovable through observation in order to be valid and that the burden of proof is with the one making the claim, not the one trying to disprove it, is the exact opposite of arguing in bad faith.
No one needs to prove that NATO is a defence pact they need to prove that it isn’t.
If you’re accused of committing a crime it’s not your responsibility to demonstrate to the court that you didn’t commit the crime, it’s a police’s job to actually find some evidence. They can’t go into court and go “well I don’t have any evidence that he didn’t commit the crime”. That makes no sense.
Are you seriously comparing court rules of individuals with statements about treaty organisations? Thoes two things are completely different entities and not comparable at all.
Did those countries jointly attack Libya because the NATO charter demanded it or because those countries agreed it was a good idea? Did all NATO countries join in attacking Libyan forces or just some of them? Joining NATO doesn’t give the NATO alliance sole control over who you’re country goes to war with.
The destruction of the Libyan airforce so Gaddafi couldn’t drop bombs on his civilian population like Assad did in Syria was a good thing that saved lives.
Unless you’re a tankie who jerks it the images of schools and hospitals ripped to shred by barrel bombs.
The destruction of the Libyan airforce so Gaddafi couldn’t drop bombs on his civilian population like Assad did in Syria
Brown leader inevitably bombs civilians if not for glorious white interference
good thing that saved lives.
Yeah, surely Libya wasnt catapulted into horrifying civil war that lasted decades after and killed hundreds of thousands of people in formerly the most developed country in Africa…
You’re accusing me of racism but I could just as easily accuse you of thinking the only way for Africans to be properous is if they are ruled over by a strongman dictator.
The people of Libya rose up against Gaddafi in thr arab spring. The civil war had already begun.
I’ve seen what a barrel full of explosives and metal shrapnel does to the inside of a school classroom when dropped from a helicopter. NATO prevented that from happening in Lybia and you’ll never forgive them for it.
the only way for Africans to be properous is if they are ruled over by a strongman dictator
That’s only if you believe the western propaganda. [Libya had a functioning representative democracy and the role of Gaddafi is overblown. Morocco today is a monarchy and so is Saudi Arabia and I dont see you calling for the bombing of either country.
One of the cornerstones of democracy is education for everyone, and Libya had an extremely successful education system that turned Libya into one of the countries with highest education level in Africa, hardly pointing to the decisions of a dictator wanting to keep the masses oppressed.
I understand you believe Gaddafi was a bloody, ruthless, corrupt dictator, but Libya was arguably more Democratic than any country in its surroundings and the source of most claims of horrible dictatorship come from western media apparatus of “eagle burger freedom institute”.
The General People’s Congress existed as a formal legislative body, but it did not make Libya a democracy because any opposition to Gaddafi got disappeared. The system was an authoritarian regime with a centralized power structure under Gaddafi himself, utilizing the GPC to maintain the appearance of popular involvement without true democratic governance.
Morocco today is a monarchy and so is Saudi Arabia and I dont see you calling for the bombing of either country.
If the people of Morocco or Saudi Arabia rose up like the Libyan people did in the arab spring, I would absolutely support using NATO to stop those dictators from bombing their own civilian populations.
Gaddafi doesn’t seem as bad only because you have never seen published photographs of his atrocities. Extrajudicial killings, torture, public executions, political repression, and elimination of dissent. Lots of horrors that I guess are okay as long as the trains run on time.
We also don’t know what a Libya where NATO didn’t intervene looks like. It’s not unbelievable that the civil war would’ve resulted in the same result but with a much higher body count.
By creating the country in Africa with highest Human Development Index instead of becoming your run off the mill slavery-sustained petrostate like Saudi Arabia?
NATO’s intervention was prompted by Yugoslavia’s bloodshed and ethnic cleansing of Kosovar Albanians, which drove the Albanians into neighbouring countries and had the potential to destabilize the region. Yugoslavia’s actions had already provoked condemnation by international organisations and agencies such as the UN, NATO, and various INGOs.
I wonder why only 10 years after the dismantling of the Eastern Block Yugoslavia turned from a problem-less multi-ethnic state to a country riddled with racial violence… Surely the west has nothing to do with that!
NATO sure as shit didn’t defend any of their member nations. Interventionalism is when you invade a country claiming that it’s “for their own good”. See: Afganistan or the second Iraq war.
Certainly have a better grasp of it than the guy who came to the conclusion that since America is bad then Putin must be good. You just have binary brain worms incapable of understanding anything more complex than a child’s tv show.
You don’t need to buy anything, you just need information literacy and critical thinking. Which is not to say you shouldn’t be critical of US foreign policy - god knows there’s lots to criticize. But comparing the genocide in Yugoslavia to the War in Ukraine is a clear sign of acute mental darkness or you intentionally amplifying authoritarian propaganda.
You’re a loser either way because of your utter failure to take intellectual responsibility. You might be just one in a sea of millions of ignoramuses but that’s not excuse
Exactly! You can’t just assume that the situation in Ukraine is equivalent to the genocide in former Yugoslavia. As with any claim originating from an authroitarian regime, it must be evaluated critically.
You’re a loser either way because of your utter failure to take intellectual responsibility. You might be just one in a sea of millions of ignoramuses but that’s not excuse
So… it’s ok if I disengage after that rude comment, right? Spare me your speech on “information literacy” if you’re simply planning on insulting me anyways, please. Just insult me right away. That’d be at least more honest.
Indeed, giving up intellectual responsibility and promoting the propaganda of authroritarian regimes (I couldn’t care less which ones you fancy in particular) should be named and shamed and ridiculed within the confines of the law.
Feel free to engage or disengage in whichver which way you want friend, couldn’t care less, my messages are not directed at you
The cognitive dissonace hits hard on this one, how dare you join a defensive pact!
They assert it is not a defensive pact, and that NATO will come for them as soon as they are powerful enough.
Sadly, that’s not really something that can be disproven, so it’s great propaganda.
The fact that NATO could have utterly destroyed the Russian military at any point since shortly after the end of the Soviet Union handily disproves it and the further fact that most NATO countries let their militaries atrophy after the break up of the Soviet Union also disproves it. Great propaganda doesn’t need to be rooted in truth, just establish an out-group who cause all the problems and hold the in-group blameless.
NATO is definitely taking its time then, it’s been around since 1949. Also the strategy of not ramping up military production until after your enemy attacks a neighbouring country, for the second time, seems like a risky one.
Lack of evidence isn’t evidence.
Well, NATO hasn’t carried out a single defensive operation in history, and has carried out (officially like in Libya or unofficially like in Iraq) several invasion wars.
So you’re saying they were exceptionally effective as a deterrent to Soviet/Russian invasion
Clearly not, as Russia is currently on war against Ukraine. What NATO excelled in was turning Libya from the highest developed country in Africa into a war-torn hellhole.
Would you happily agree to Mexico’s democratic right to host Russian military bases next to the US border if they so wanted? I’m from the EU myself, and it’s obvious to me how if that were the case, this would lead to escalation, so I wouldn’t Desire Russia to pursue a military alliance with Mexico.
You need evidence to disprove something.
Not legally. That’s why you always hide the body.
People treated Russia as a superpower. They fucked up so bad they got successfully counter invaded by the country they were invading. They don’t have 5th Gen fighters and they can’t produce modern tanks. They’re refitting older tanks and giving troops fucking golf carts. They’ve depleted a ton of soviet stock and their air defense can’t even keep their oil infrastructure from exploding once a week. Prigozin nearly marched directly to Moscow with no resistance.
If NATO was planning to invade, they now factually know that Russia is a paper tiger and could take Moscow in days.
Also if NATO somehow forced putin to annihilate his own armor stocks and troops, then they are doing 5,000 iq illuminati bullshit and there’s nothing to be done anyway. I tag those people as NATO propagandists because they’re bigger western chauvinists than they even wish I was lol.
To be fair, Russia has geological challenges to maintaining an effective air defense; especially in the age of drones. It’s one of the reasons they couldn’t bring their whole air force to bear in the invasion of Ukraine: they had a huge amount of country to maintain coverage over.
The irony of course being that NATO doesn’t particularly have any interest in vast expanses of undeveloped potato fields giving away to frozen tundra, so they never had any impetus to invade. But Putin is now giving them one and at the same time demonstrating why the invasion would most likely be successful.
Which, as I understand the Russian military relationship with the Kremlin, came as a surprise to even Putin and would certainly incite some panic, renewed propaganda efforts, and saber rattling like we’ve been seeing him do lately.
And still: Europe is increasing it’s military capabilities. How does that fit together? Genuine question.
Paper Tiger is the wrong word. Russia has a dangerous military but is in no way the powerhouse it portrayed itself before invading Ukraine. They had built a small core of a modern professional military that they used a couple of times to great effect but they acted like they’d done that to the whole military. Also, some parts of the Russian military ARE excellent: their electronic warfare capabilities are top notch. They also maintain advanced espionage capabilities.
Because of decades of chronic underspending on the military, as governments convinced themselves that a land war in Europe was unthinkable.
To be fair, even most Russians in their Military and Intelligence thought a large land war in Europe was unthinkable.
Underspending because the US didn’t wanted a military strong Europe. Every time Europe has said anything about becoming a military power on its own the US has pushed against it. The US has wanted Europe as a place to put military bases and little more.
But “chronic underspending” doesn’t fit together with “could take Moscow in days”.
If you remove the US from NATO, the remaining Military Strength of the alliance would have struggled with the Russia Military prior to the Ukraine Invasion and absolutely would have been unable to launch a meaningful ground offensive into Russia.
Ok. That makes sense. But wouldn’t it have beenmore accurate to claim that the US (and it’s allies) “could take Moscowin days”?
Chronic under spending doesn’t mean no spending it just means that the size of the military has reduced, which if you don’t believe there is much chance of a land war makes financial sense. But it’s still got some pretty high-end tech. Meanwhile Russia has lost all there good military tech in a pointless war. So now Western tanks designed to fight other modern military vehicles are going up against stuff from the cold war. Multi-stage explosive shells designed to go up against metamaterial armour plating, are instead of being fired at pig iron, which is basically just rust held together with paint.
The assumption always was that if there was ever a war in Europe it would be a nuclear exchange, and therefore the size of your military wouldn’t really matter, it would be all about readiness and contingencies. They never assumed that a superpower would just sort of disintegrate on its own, and then lash out. That would be an absolutely ridiculous scenario, that only it has happened because the Russian military command were too scared of Putin to actually tell him the truth.
I still don’t really get why the spending has to increase if Russia’s military is so desolate. Why is there discussioneof mandatory military service in Germany if it’s simply to “defend” against an enemy that is too weak to actually be a threat?
Sorry, that is just motivated reasoning to frame Putin as an unstrategic maniac.
The Russians have shown great ability and resolve to switch to a wartime economy and ramp up military industrial production while Europe has struggled for years just to increase their artillery shell production. The belief is that if the war in Ukraine ends, it won’t take Russia long to replace their loses.
Where do you get the impression that Russia isn’t a threat? Ukraine proves that it very much is.
Indeed, it’s not something that can be disproven, as in it’s nonsense that shouldn’t be entertained in rational discourse.
Arguing in bad faith for the good guys is still arguing in bad faith.
Me reminding you that a hypothesis needs to be disprovable through observation in order to be valid and that the burden of proof is with the one making the claim, not the one trying to disprove it, is the exact opposite of arguing in bad faith.
But the claim was that NATO is a defensive pact. They said it’s an un-disprovable claim.
No one needs to prove that NATO is a defence pact they need to prove that it isn’t.
If you’re accused of committing a crime it’s not your responsibility to demonstrate to the court that you didn’t commit the crime, it’s a police’s job to actually find some evidence. They can’t go into court and go “well I don’t have any evidence that he didn’t commit the crime”. That makes no sense.
Are you seriously comparing court rules of individuals with statements about treaty organisations? Thoes two things are completely different entities and not comparable at all.
Ask Libya how defensive NATO is.
Did those countries jointly attack Libya because the NATO charter demanded it or because those countries agreed it was a good idea? Did all NATO countries join in attacking Libyan forces or just some of them? Joining NATO doesn’t give the NATO alliance sole control over who you’re country goes to war with.
You mean the action taken under a UN mandate to implement a no fly zone and protect civilians?
The destruction of the Libyan airforce so Gaddafi couldn’t drop bombs on his civilian population like Assad did in Syria was a good thing that saved lives.
Unless you’re a tankie who jerks it the images of schools and hospitals ripped to shred by barrel bombs.
Brown leader inevitably bombs civilians if not for glorious white interference
Yeah, surely Libya wasnt catapulted into horrifying civil war that lasted decades after and killed hundreds of thousands of people in formerly the most developed country in Africa…
You’re accusing me of racism but I could just as easily accuse you of thinking the only way for Africans to be properous is if they are ruled over by a strongman dictator.
The people of Libya rose up against Gaddafi in thr arab spring. The civil war had already begun.
I’ve seen what a barrel full of explosives and metal shrapnel does to the inside of a school classroom when dropped from a helicopter. NATO prevented that from happening in Lybia and you’ll never forgive them for it.
That’s only if you believe the western propaganda. [Libya had a functioning representative democracy and the role of Gaddafi is overblown. Morocco today is a monarchy and so is Saudi Arabia and I dont see you calling for the bombing of either country.
One of the cornerstones of democracy is education for everyone, and Libya had an extremely successful education system that turned Libya into one of the countries with highest education level in Africa, hardly pointing to the decisions of a dictator wanting to keep the masses oppressed.
I understand you believe Gaddafi was a bloody, ruthless, corrupt dictator, but Libya was arguably more Democratic than any country in its surroundings and the source of most claims of horrible dictatorship come from western media apparatus of “eagle burger freedom institute”.
The General People’s Congress existed as a formal legislative body, but it did not make Libya a democracy because any opposition to Gaddafi got disappeared. The system was an authoritarian regime with a centralized power structure under Gaddafi himself, utilizing the GPC to maintain the appearance of popular involvement without true democratic governance.
If the people of Morocco or Saudi Arabia rose up like the Libyan people did in the arab spring, I would absolutely support using NATO to stop those dictators from bombing their own civilian populations.
Libia has been at war almost since Gaddafi’s death at war. Is that a better situation than with Gaddafi?
Edit: missing words.
The people rose up against Gaddafi in the arab spring. He would’ve used his airforce to drop bombs on his civilian population the same was Assad did.
It was a civil war, not a revolt.
deleted by creator
Almost what?
“At war”, sorry.
Gaddafi was bad, sure, but NATO reduced libya to a state where there’s now open air slave markets.
Gaddafi doesn’t seem as bad only because you have never seen published photographs of his atrocities. Extrajudicial killings, torture, public executions, political repression, and elimination of dissent. Lots of horrors that I guess are okay as long as the trains run on time.
We also don’t know what a Libya where NATO didn’t intervene looks like. It’s not unbelievable that the civil war would’ve resulted in the same result but with a much higher body count.
By creating the country in Africa with highest Human Development Index instead of becoming your run off the mill slavery-sustained petrostate like Saudi Arabia?
You can rape and murder innocents. Kill anyone who questions your regime. Blow up airliners. All good as long as thr HDI number is high enough.
I bet you’re a huge fan of Israel. They have such a high HDI number compared to their neighbors. It excuses all atrocities.
Oh, which country did Libya invade? What was the civilian murder rate compared to neighboring countries? Give me numbers instead of vibes, please
How about a Wikipedia page?
Give me number of murdered civilians in Libya at the time in comparison with Egypt or Chad, both neighboring countries.
And you’re not answering: which country did Libya invade?
Ask Yugoslavia how “defensive” Nato is.
Are we talking about this?
I wonder why only 10 years after the dismantling of the Eastern Block Yugoslavia turned from a problem-less multi-ethnic state to a country riddled with racial violence… Surely the west has nothing to do with that!
Because it wasn’t problem-less. Those tensions always existed under the surface.
And why did those tensions explode later? Just coincidence?
I thought mostly everyone blamed Serb nationalism that the socialist leaders kept in check
Where defense?
Defending people against ethnic cleansing seemed to be the goal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia#Goals
Cool motive, still interventionism. /s
Edit: That was also the official justification of Russia’s invasion. I don’t buy either justifications.
I don’t know what that is. NATO did an intervention on the ethnic cleansing, do you mean that?
NATO sure as shit didn’t defend any of their member nations. Interventionalism is when you invade a country claiming that it’s “for their own good”. See: Afganistan or the second Iraq war.
It did stop the ethnic cleansing though.
I’m not sure if interventionalism is another term for the same thing but interventionism is what I often see used for what you’re describing.
Yeah Russia was pissed we stopped little brother Serbia from ethnic cleansing the infidels and now makes a mockery of our altruism.
Only an idiot believes they’re sincere though.
The best understander of politics entered the chat. /s
Certainly have a better grasp of it than the guy who came to the conclusion that since America is bad then Putin must be good. You just have binary brain worms incapable of understanding anything more complex than a child’s tv show.
You don’t need to buy anything, you just need information literacy and critical thinking. Which is not to say you shouldn’t be critical of US foreign policy - god knows there’s lots to criticize. But comparing the genocide in Yugoslavia to the War in Ukraine is a clear sign of acute mental darkness or you intentionally amplifying authoritarian propaganda.
You’re a loser either way because of your utter failure to take intellectual responsibility. You might be just one in a sea of millions of ignoramuses but that’s not excuse
Its not critical thinking when you just parrot everything you’ve been told.
Exactly! You can’t just assume that the situation in Ukraine is equivalent to the genocide in former Yugoslavia. As with any claim originating from an authroitarian regime, it must be evaluated critically.
Have a nice day.
So… it’s ok if I disengage after that rude comment, right? Spare me your speech on “information literacy” if you’re simply planning on insulting me anyways, please. Just insult me right away. That’d be at least more honest.
Indeed, giving up intellectual responsibility and promoting the propaganda of authroritarian regimes (I couldn’t care less which ones you fancy in particular) should be named and shamed and ridiculed within the confines of the law.
Feel free to engage or disengage in whichver which way you want friend, couldn’t care less, my messages are not directed at you
Do you mean Serbia, or are you just confused in general about things?
Please try to use google before you try to be a condescending d**k
So what’s your problem here exactly?
This is a counterexample of NATO being a “defensive pact”.
NATO successfully deterred the Soviet Union from invading Western and Central Europe for the entire cold war. That’s a VERY successful defensive pact.
I’m not claiming that they’re not effective at defending. I’m arguing that they’re still a tool of imperialism.
I think that it’s still defensive if they stopped ethnic cleansing once.
Nope, that’s interventionism, not defense.
Also, whether or not ethnic cleansing actually happened is highly debatable. The death toll exploded after NATO started bombing.
Removed by mod