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.
Critical thinking requires thinking or at least some investigation from alternative sources. Was there a genocide in Yugoslavia? Where did this information originate? Who benefited from the breakup of Yugoslavia? Why did a previously settled population become restive? What role did NGO’s play? Did the UN authorize NATO to destroy a well developed state? Did Qaddafi, whom the West had no problem with for years piss a very large actor off? Did the UN authorize its destruciton? Why are some ‘Dictators’ acceptable but others are not? Is it when they outlive their usefulness or decide to trade in another currency that a very large actor doesn’t like? Why is it OK when a very large actor attacks, bombs, intervenes, sanctions, embargoes other states but not when other states do the same to defend their own interests?
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
Care to explain where I did that? How is the pro-NATO narrative not by an authoritarian regime?
(I couldn’t care less which ones you fancy in particular)
Comrade, I’m an anarchist. Not “fancying” any authoritarian regime (be it Russian, Chinese, Islamist, European, GDR-ian, Cuban or American) is kind of my whole idea. All of it.
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.
The ethnic cleansing was just a pretence, though. Why is that so obvious when Russia claims a genocide is happening but not with NATO?
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.
Yeah, that guy must be very dumb… where is he, though? Haven’t encountered him here yet.
Edit: Come to think of it: the opposite is quite widespread on lemmy: “Putin bad, so everyone against Russia: good”
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.
Critical thinking requires thinking or at least some investigation from alternative sources. Was there a genocide in Yugoslavia? Where did this information originate? Who benefited from the breakup of Yugoslavia? Why did a previously settled population become restive? What role did NGO’s play? Did the UN authorize NATO to destroy a well developed state? Did Qaddafi, whom the West had no problem with for years piss a very large actor off? Did the UN authorize its destruciton? Why are some ‘Dictators’ acceptable but others are not? Is it when they outlive their usefulness or decide to trade in another currency that a very large actor doesn’t like? Why is it OK when a very large actor attacks, bombs, intervenes, sanctions, embargoes other states but not when other states do the same to defend their own interests?
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
Care to explain where I did that? How is the pro-NATO narrative not by an authoritarian regime?
Comrade, I’m an anarchist. Not “fancying” any authoritarian regime (be it Russian, Chinese, Islamist, European, GDR-ian, Cuban or American) is kind of my whole idea. All of it.
rude.
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
Not gonna read your AI slop.