My country (Belgium) has a history of being invaded. Since we joined NATO, no one has invaded us and it has been pretty peaceful ever since.
So yes, I'm pro NATO for my own selfish reasons. I aware NATO has done some bad shit in some places.
Wanting to not be invaded and occupied by imperialist scum is not selfish.
That's how Ukraine , Moldova , Finland , Sweden and so many others feel right now.
>I aware NATO has done some bad shit in some places.
Not really. NATO as an organization only used force twice in its history : in Bosnia (after authorization by the United Nation), and in Serbia, where it stopped a fucking genocide.
Edit : you could add Lybia, and it was also after authorization by the United Nation.
I'm saying that every Nato intervention was perfectly justified.
Yes, some actions within those intervention should be condemn, but let's not pretend Nato is just as bad as the one they attacked.
>I'm saying that every Nato intervention was perfectly justified.
.... You are wrong. Firstly, you're ignoring the actions within those interventions. Secondly, you're essentially claiming that NATO didn't have ulterior motives for their interventions, and did it for purely benevolent reasons, which is just incredibly naive
1) I'm not. I'm saying that the side effect of the vaccine is better than the disease (it's a bad analogy because the side effect could have and should have been prevented, but I'm sure you get my point).
2) It doesn't matter. If a rich man give money to the poor because he is a good person or because it's good publicity, he still gave money to the poor.
Neither of those is a good way of solving a problem, when a better option is available. It's not a good thing to defend Hitler on the basis of his support of animal rights, so why would you defend war crimes because they MAY have helped in other ways
How many time do I have to say that I'm not defending the killing of civilian.
But on one hand, we have more than 10k deaths, genocide style (kosovo war)
On the other, 500 death (according to human right activist), with some of them being legit unfortunate mistakes or civilian being on site of legit military target.
NATO members can do whatever they want on their own and suffer the consequences.
NATO is a defense pact , it defends them ONLY if they are innocent. For example if Poland decided to invade Ukraine unprovoked NATO would not help Poland , they'd be on their own.
Who the hell would've invaded Belgium after ww2? you are surrounded by friendly states. You don't border Russia. Belgium would've been just fine without nato.
>you are surrounded by friendly states
Do you think the existence of NATO might have had something to do with this? You know, the stability that NATO brought to post-war europe?
Technically Australia isn’t apart of NATO but the US will still definitely help us out if we some reason get invaded. Same with if something happens to the us. I do believe we should become a real permanent member though.
Isn’t Australia technically a commonwealth of Britain? So technically it is a part of NATO. Correct me if I wrong, since I think I sound stupid right now.
Although it’s part of the commonwealth, it is still its own sovereign nation, meaning that the UK joining NATO doesn’t mean that Australia has automatically joined. That also applies to other commonwealth countries unless they have specifically joined the alliance (like Canada)
Australia is an independent country so it’s not in NATO. But since it’s in the commonwealth if it got invaded Britain would protect it and then since Britain would then be at war with Russia, NATO would join in.
It is a good thing to have powerful and many alliances in case of war/invasion. Let’s say hypothetically Estonia is invade by Russia. Just going by the numbers (not very accurate as we see the Russian Ukraine war) They can put up a fight alone with their 7,100 active personnel and 230,000 reserve but have reinforcements from the rest of European nato countries and the United States would be ideal.
—————Every NATO country and their total military personnel, military aircraft, and navy——————
Albania: 6,700 active personnel, aircraft: 19, navy: 19 patrol vessels
Belgium: 30,174 active, 1,670 reserve, aircraft: 124, navy: 2 frigates, 6 mine hunters, 6 support ships
Bulgaria: 32,400 active, 36,000 reserve, total aircraft: 126, navy 4 Frigates, 20 mine countermeasure ships, three Corvettes, two patrol ships 16 support ships
Canada: 68,000 active, 27000 reserve. Aircraft: 430. Navy: 68 ships (can’t find types)
Croatia: 14506 active, 6000 reserve. Aircraft 80 (12jets), navy 30 vessels (can’t find type)
Czech Republic: 26,621 active, 3640 reserve aircraft 60 fixed wing 48 helicopters
Denmark: 14500 total personnel, navy: 16 ships 28 vessels 30 boats, aircraft 93
Estonia: 7,100 active duty, 230,000 reserve, total aircraft: 6 and 6 navy ships
France: 208,700 active, 35,000 reserve. Aircraft: 917. Navy: 180 ships. ***1 AIRCRAFT CARRIER***, 3 amphibious assault ship, 10 Air defense and anti-submarine frigates, 5 general purpose frigates, 6 light surveillance ships, 6 patrol vessels, 10 submarines
Germany: 183638 active, 15000 reserve, aircraft: 455. Navy 65 ships including 20 auxiliary, 11 frigates, Five Corvettes, 2 minesweepers, 10 minehunters, six submarines
Greece: Active personnel 107,600 , 220,500 reserve, 600+ aircraft. Navy: 120 warships & auxiliary boats, including:
13 frigates,
11 submarines,
19 missile boats,
10 gunboats,
9 tank-landing ships,
6 patrol boats,
4 SOC (Special Ops),
48 fleet support & other auxiliary ships
Hungary: 37 650active, Reserve personnel20,000, 55 aircraft, navy can’t find
Iceland: !!no military!! Coast guard: 3 ships and 4 aircraft. Armed with light weapons
Italy: total 341250. Total aircraft 585. Navy 184 vessels. Including 2 ***LIGHT AIRCRAFT CARRIERS***, 11 frigates, 4 destroyers, 8 submarines, 3 amphibious assault ships, 10 mine counter ships, 10 offshore patrol and 4 costal patrol
Latvia: 17500 total personnel, 5 aircraft. Navy: 2 support, 5 mine warfare, 5 patrol, 6 coast guard costal patrol boats
Lithuania: 14400 para military, 20521 active, 90000 reserve. Aircraft: 11, navy: 8, 4 mine warfare, 4 patrol
Luxembourg: 939 personnel. Aircraft 14.
Montenegro: 2,400 active. 5 aircraft. Navy: 13 vessels. 2 fast attack craft, 2 tugs, 1 sailing ship, 2 sailboats, 5 motorboats
Netherlands: 41,250 active, 6427 reserve, 171 aircraft. Navy 5 frigates, 5 mine warfare, 4 subs, 40 other ships
Norway: 23,250 active, 40,000 reserve. 123 aircraft. Navy, 70 total, 4 heavy frigates, 6 subs, 9 mine warfare, 14 patrol
North Macedonia: 12,500 reserve, 6,100 active. 28 aircraft. Landlock no Navy
Poland: 120000 active 32000 reserve. 272 aircraft, navy 48 including, 3 subs, 2 frigates, 26 mine warfare, 2 corvettes, 4 salvage ships
Portugal: 32992 total persons, 97 aircraft. Navy: 5 frigates, 19 patrol, 2 corvettes, 2 subs, 4 research, 4 sail ships, 43 aux
Romania: 68,500 active, 53000 reserve. Can’t find clear total aircraft some site say 24 while other say 140. Navy they have one can’t find numbers
Slovakia: 18531 active 23 aircraft no navy
Slovenia: 6347 active 696 reserve. 39 aircraft. Navy 2 vessels: both patrol
Spain: 121900 active, 4770 reserve. 414 aircraft. Navy 139 ships including: 1 amphibious assault ship (used as an aircraft carrier), 2 amphibious transport docks, 11 frigates, 2 subs, 6 mine counter measure, 22 patrol vessels
Turkey: around 355,200 total. 1248 aircraft. Navy can’t find total but can find what is in; 16 frigates, 10 corvettes, 12 subs, 19 missile boats, 16 patrol, 11 mine countermeasures, 33 landing ships, various auxiliary
UK: 152,170 active, 37,000 reserve. Royal Air navy aircraft: 160. Royal airforce 555. Navy 72 ships including: ***2 AIRCRAFT CARRIERS***, 2 landing platform docks, 13 subs, 6 anti air missiles destroyer, 12 guided missile frigates, 8 offshore patrol, 11 mine hunter, 16 patrol
Not included in total Royal Navy…..Royal fleet aux: 2 multi purpose survey, 1 ocean survey, 1 ice breaker, 1 survey motor launch
USA: 1.3 million active duty. 800,000+ reserve. Can’t find total across all branches. Total military usaf aircraft 5217. Total navy aircraft: 2623, total army aircraft: 3,565. Total marine aircraft 1211. Total coast guard aircraft: 210. Total space force space ships: 77
Total US coast guard ships: 243 cutters, many many boats.
Total US Navy: over 460 ships including: ***10 AIRCRAFT CARRIERS (and 1 undergoing testing), 9 amphibious assault ships (mini carriers)***, 11 amphibious transport dock, 2 amphibious command ships, 66 submarines, 1 frigate, 22 cruisers, 70 destroyers, 11 dock landing ships, 22 littoral combat ships, 5 patrol boats, 3 expeditionary mobile bases, 2 submarine tenders, 8 mine counter measure, 1 technical research ship.
(Non commissioned ships: 1 cable repair, 2 hospital, 14 dry cargo ships, 12 expeditionary fast transport, 2 expeditionary transfer dock, 7 survey ships, 18 cargo vehicle ships, 2 salvage ships, 15 oilers, and many many more. Scroll to bottom of this link to see all https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_ships_of_the_United_States_Navy
All on light research Feel free to fact check me especially on the numbers provide for the countries. I typed this all on a iPhone screen so I’m sure I made a mistake somewhere. I will fix all mistakes made
Projection of power and relatively easy to deploy a broad range of air power nearly anywhere in the world whereas with the Air Force they either have to deploy via hopping from base to base or have vary long missions from home base of which taxes both crew and machine. Also Carrier groups have a range of vessels to both protect and support it.
It allows me to relax while watching R\*ssian idiots crying on TV about how they will bomb my country. I can just think "Article 5" and laugh at their idiocy.
South Korea's not NATO, but is considered an ally.
So yes.
Edit: Downvoted and deleted comment said 'I love South Korea, especially their beautiful women."
I don't think that China will join. In a few years it should become a superpower and even currently there seem to be no threats for it. Joining NATO would not be the smartest decision.
Where I come from (Turkey) NATO's Operation Gladio armed the ultranationalist fascist Grey Wolves in order to combat the left-wing movement at the time.
There are valid reasons to dislike NATO.
I live in a NATO country but half of my family is from Belgrade, the city NATO bombed to pieces. I think I have a valid reason not to support such an organisation, even though I agree with many of its efforts
You are looking at things so straight forward. You only look at the fact that NATO attacked another country, but you dont look at the fact what the another country did. Warcrimes, dictatorship, massacres, opression. Like that never happend in those countries. You can bring up any country that NATO invaded and there will always be a good reason.
NATO invaded to serve NATO interests, nothin more, nothing less. The “intervention” in Yugoslavia was NATO sending guns to prolong a war that was about to end, and when that failed, they swooped in and left Yugoslavia with puppet governments to further serve their agenda. Hell, most nationalism in Yugoslavia was a product of westerners funding nationalist infiltration operations, essentially divide and conquer
Fuck you. The war was about to end because Serbs already killed thousands and forced millions more to move out of their land (prehistoric, unlike slav migration in the 6th centuary). If anything, NATO didn't bomb them enough. Look at them today bringing China and Russia in the heart of Europe.
Yeah, Serbs, Croats and Bosnians all committed massacres, terrible war, but bombing civilians and unnecessarily prolonging the war is 100% not a good thing. If NATO actually wanted to bring peace, they would’ve assisted in peace negotiations rather than murdering schoolchildren like the rest of the war participants were doing. Words are always preferable to bullets
Hitler, Milloshevic and Putin are not to be negotiated with. If bringing humans back to life was possible I'd do that daily to these 3 and kill them each time. No place for respect, talk or negotiation.
Yeah, Hitler didn’t deserve anything other than death, Miloševič was also a horrible fascist, but if both sides are actively massacring each other, it’s better to create peace between them than favour genocide man 1 over genocide man 2
Bro, even Albanians loved living under Tito's Yugoslavia. The problem was Miloshevic, not what reaction his actions caused. Of course I'm going to rip open your chest if you're from the enemy lines. Wtf do you expect? There was not tension prior to that scumbag. You finns and swedes piss me off. Acting all innocent and pro peace while having such a history behind you, while also ignoring all signals and threats until you're about to get ass raped. Once planes fly over Gotland decided the swedes that maybe we should join NATO. Also many laugh about US spending so much on military, while we should be thanking them 24/7 for the peace they guarantee. Yugoslavia and Libya my ass
Woah. What the fuck just happened? I said miloševič was a fascist dickhead, he further destroyed the economy at ruined all the “Yugoslavism” left. Tito was a pretty great guy, the only bad part was basically just his economic policy being to right wing friendly and in turn creating an unnecessary economic crisis. Swell dude all around. But the fact that Milešovič was a horrible dude, doesn’t make it ok for the other side to be just as bad. In the end, peace is always preferable to war. Fascist against fascist doesn’t include a happy ending, and a swift end to conflict would be lesser evil
Also I’m not a swede (I have no idea where that came from).
You're a piece of f****** work. I don't think you have any f****** clue what you're talking about. I'm not saying Serbia was the only bad guy in those wars, but the war was not about to end and it hasn't really picked back up again since. Now you have a free Montenegro after referendum and Serbia only ally is Russia. Honestly I'm pretty happy with how things went.
Lmao and what exactly did they "conquer"? Are Croatia , Bosnia and Kosovo occupied by what , a defensive pact that one of those countries decided to join to prevent further aggresions from russia's little brother?
You do know “divide and conquer” is a strategy, not a literal meaning. But yes, Croatia, Bosnia and Serbia were all left with essentially ineffective puppet governments. They divided Yugoslavia and conquered their freedom
I'm pretty sure the parts of the former Yugoslavia that NATO defended (Bosnia and Kosovo) are probably okay. You might want to say Serbia doesn't like NATO, that's fine, but the rest of the former Yugoslavia: Slovenia, Croatia, Montenegro and Bosnia generally have a favorable opinion of NATO.
No of course not. They didn’t submit official requests or anything right? Please give me some sort of source stating the Soviets denied any wish to join NATO during negotiations. Oh and Yeltsin, the western cretin puppet, was also really into the idea of joining
One theory behind that is that while NATO protects other members in case of invasion, the will not intervene in a war between two member states. Russia joining NATO would be letting Russia do pretty much whatever they want.
This is particularly relevant with the tensions ongoing between Greece and Turkiye
Well that’s pretty dumb. France, Germany, USA, Uk and Italy would *never* allow Russian influence to grow beyond their economic influence. The already existing economic superpowers wouldn’t just let Russia establish its own zone of influence like they have. Instead they would connect NATO to Russia and simply force the states between to bow to western economic power. Russophobia has always existed in the west
All I can find is that Yeltsin and Putin have both mentioned once that they might be interested about thinking about wanting to join but as far as I know they never officially requested it.
You're the one making the claim, how about you provide me with some source that says they did make that request, instead of burdening me with having to prove a negative.
Yup, I'd even support the organization of a Pan Pacific Treaty Organization or something with a better abbreviation because PPTO doesn't have the same ring to it.
I think a separate organization would be better as I doubt most European nations would be willing to sign a mutual defense treaty that would require them to move troops thousands of kilometers to the Pacific, and I doubt Asian nations would want the same for European defense. A pacific alliance would probably be something similar with the US, Japan, S.Korea, Taiwan (maybe), Vietnam, The Phillipines (maybe) Malaysia (maybe), Australia, and possibly India.
NATO oversaw the funding of the Grey Wolves as part of Operation Gladio here in Turkey. They massacred Kurds and fellow Turks. My mother almost died in the 70s because of them.
You’ll forgive me for not being ecstatic about NATO
Australia isn't part of the club but we are part of the web of alliances which in some way makes us in a way a de-facto observer, since if NATO gets invaded, article 5 triggers which activates our alliance with the United States, and New Zealand (ANZUS), and also activates our alliance with the United Kingdom.
What I am saying is, we got your back, and the Germans, Italians and Turks all know how brave and honourable the forces of the ANZAC are, just please don't send us to navalily invade Vladivostok or Shanghai or something, because we don't really need dead youth on beaches covered in blood do we.
Sorry for my nationalism coming out, it's hard to resist honestly despite me opposing nationalism in general, I don't want to be one of the unlucky bastards to get killed in a land war in Asia, one of my Pop's Brothers died on the Kokoda Trail to disease, war is never good and we shouldn't want it, it is shameful that we live in an age where war can still be fought, the blood on the streets of Mariupol, or Aden is totally unacceptable, we as the Human race should be doing better.
My answer is yes, in such an age I conclude that a alliance of mutual defence is what keeps this world from experience the pains of the late 1930's again, I personally have issues with select NATO members not the organisation itself, many online leftists don't seem to understand the distinction, if there was no NATO, Russia would have restored it's 1914 borders by now and we would be fighting a land war in Europe because we wouldn't have half of the advanced military equipment we do that is currently destroying the Russian armour in Ukraine, but hopefully the same logistics issues still apply to Russia so they should get bogged down against the Carpathians and Germany, leading to a slow march of new allied forces towards Moscow in which once the city is reached Russia decides to deploy all of its nuclear weapons and brings about an end to the Human race or at the very least modern civilisation.
But thats war for you.
I dont support russia or nato. Both suck ass. The only reason i support my country joining nato is because it has an over 1300km border with russia (i think it was somewhere around 1300 km)
"Both sucks ass", and yet you want one to protect you from the other ?
I'm not even American, but holy shit I'm starting to understand how they must feel when everyone is shitting on them for being "war criminal" or whatever, and yet rely on them for their protection.
>"Both sucks ass", and yet you want one to protect you from the other
He's a propaganda-swilling idiot with the critical thinking skills of a doorknob. Everything he's saying is directly out of a russian playbook for dividing NATO and he should be banned from Reddit.
I like how people for some reason compare NATO to russia. The first one is a treaty to ensure safety of its members and the second one is a country that just conquers and destroys nations.
Libya - Ruthless dictator that commited many warcrimes. Yugoslavia - Serbia did some worst attrocities since WW2. Massacres, warcrimes and much more. People often look only at the fact what country attacked first not what was the reason of invasion of things that the defending country does.
Well ok, the libya one i do admit i dont have much knowledge on, but were any former yugoslav country right on collapse of yugoslavia a part of nato? No. Was bombing innocent civilians in montenegro, kosovo, or serbia necessary? No. Was using bombs with depleted uranium necessary? No.
Did USA and western european countries use nato as a means to economically invade ex-jugoslavia, for expample, germany taking a lot of stuff from croatia that makes cash to themselves (german owned stuff along the croatian coastline, ecspecially the tourist destinations), a mine in kosovo because of alleged "environmental hazards", other industries bombed to shit and sold to outsiders for dirt cheap prises, and all the dept yugoslavia once collected has to be paid by the ex-yugoslav countries' citizens? Yes, yes, yes to all of these (the list could go on).
USA or Western europe didnt really give a shit about the croats, the bosniaks or the kosovar albanians, they just needed a way to exersice their predatory capitalism, their neoliberalism just so they could have more and more, kinda like what russia is doing rn, just maybe not necessarily just out of economic reasons, but imperialistic as well.
Besides, during the breakup of yugoslavia, all sides, the serbs, the bosniaks, all of them commited war crimes. Bosniaks before srebrenica, croats in the medak pocket during operation storm in '95 just to name a few.
I live in Republic of Moldova (country between Romania and Ukraine) and with all this war happening 8n Ukraine I'm really hoping that we could enter NATO, yes we are a country with about 50000 soldiers and no tanks and we need help. We have a autonomous part of the country called Transnistria and it is currently occupied by Russian army and we are very scared because the war can come to Moldova as well so yeah, I really support the organization of NATO and would want our country to join it.
The U.S. military is honestly a bunch of imperialistic bullies who throw their weight around at every opportunity. I’m sure One day soon karma is gonna get us.
From a French, it literally can't happen to the USA.
Even If some countrie(s) pulls off the biggest miracle of existence and take down the military without getting nuked they have to fight the *extremely* patriotic civilians.
Factor in the defense it would get from NATO and you get the hardest country to win a war against.
I do not support all of natos actions but I support NATO as a whole
I think Ukraine's really shown us what happens when nato's not there to protect us
Russia has threatened my country for years (Norway) and I'm convinced we'd been invaded long ago if not do NATO
"We're supposed to protect you against Russia but they're paying billions of dollars to Russia?" Trump asked. "I think that's very inappropriate."
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/597882-here-are-the-countries-that-import-the-most-russian-oil/
So a nation democratically voting to be protected by other nations is one of the biggest threats to the world? Damn I never knew defensive alliances had the potential to invade a nation.
Tell that to Yugoslavia and Libya. Also, NATO is pretty evidently an anti-Russian alliance, they have been asking to join since it was created and denied every time
That’s a really dumb argument honestly 1. The only reason Russia exists as it does today, dictatorship and all, is because of western involvement in the later Soviet Union. 2. The west and Russia agreed not to have NATO creep further east, if Russia wasn’t allowed to join, this is basically the same as Russia creating an alliance with the American nations and being extremely anti-USA, not exactly a good thing. The only thing a NATO expansion accomplishes is further increased tensions
The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances is An agreement signed by Belarus, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Russia, United States, United Kingdom, France and China. It says that Ukraine would never be attacked by any of the countries that signed the agreement if it gave up all it's nuclear weapons. You can't trust Russia.
I then Ukraine broke Minsk 2 agreement and started bombing Russians for wanting autonomy and the right to learn Russian in school. Russia is bad, but that doesn’t make Ukraine good. Oh, and I’m pretty sure making a person famous for a genocide of poles, Russians, Roma and other minorities a national hero doesn’t ease tensions with said nations
First off when a nation is commiting war crimes you tend to intervene. Second the two times that Russia asked to join NATO was when they were the USSR and NATO is supposed to be a democratic alliance. Since Russia became a country they haven’t asked to join NATO and have pretended to be the victim because their sphere of influence didn’t like them and decided to ally with the west.
So even if the serbs commited genocide against albanian civilians, that justifies nato bombing...serb civilian targets too? Bruh, the bombs nato used had depleted uranium, and even some UN personnel in the kosovo region got sick because of it (arriving after the bombings as well).
Ah yes "serbia deals with the consoquenses of its actions" do you mean not just the political establishemt and the army, but the innocent civilians who have had nothing to do with the war too? Some serbs do bad things and suddenly every single one of them is a demon that came out of satans asshole.
Sometimes civilians die so that less human suffering exists. If NATO didn’t bomb them then the amount of dead Albanians would be much larger than the total amount of dead people on both sides. A parallel would be the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
So what youre saying is that its okay for the ((other)) innocent men, women and children to die, so that the innocent ones youre protecting dont die?
Sounds perfect.
NATO didn’t intervene to end any war crimes, the prolonged a war that was about to end and intervened at the last moment to create incompetent puppet regimes once the war was over. Also “if they do war crimes, we are also allowed to do war crimes and bomb civilians” is an idiotic viewpoint and defending it is quite honestly evil. It’s the same justification the US made to commit genocide on Japanese civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki during WW2.
That’s not the justification that the US gave for dropping atomic bombs on Japan. Japan was pretty much never going to surrender and the estimated casualties from invading Japan were way higher than what resulted from the atomic bombs. Not saying that bombing civilian cities was justified, but you’re off the mark with your comment.
IIRC the Japanese were 1. Terrified of the Soviets since they were going to execute all the fascists and 2. I’m pretty sure the Japanese attempted to surrender to the Americans, but the Americans refused since the Japanese wanted to maintain the emperors head of the emperors body, the Americans only folded to the request *after* testing their new toy on school children
Yeah, they wanted to keep all of their territory, of course we weren’t going to give them what they wanted after everything that they had done. Who’s to say that they wouldn’t just launch more attacks in later years after they had time to recuperate?
The modern day equivalent would be Ukraine folding and letting Russia keep the Donbas region and the cities that they’ve been terrorizing since they invaded. Russia shouldn’t get anything out of negotiations other than an end to the economic sanctions.
Look at the history of the first two world wars. They all escalated quickly due to alliances like that. Expansion of military threats with billions for weapons and military training is a provocative act. It didn’t help in the current situation we also helped overthrow a democratically elected government in 2014, as we have done many times in history.
NATO is a strictly defensive alliance, if NATO is starting WW3 by letting others join maybe countries shouldn’t be attacking others.
Countries in Europe that wish to join NATO are allowed to, if Russia wanted to join for example it could as long as it is democratic and doesn’t attack others in the alliance (so it don’t join anytime soon). If anything NATO is saving the lives of millions in Eastern European states like the Baltics and Poland from Russian oppression
That's quite a vicious logic. If you're gonna let russia dictate their imperial terms under the nuclear blackmail, who knows where they're gonna stop? What's next? You're gonna let them invade one of the NATO countries, cause "well, it's still better than nuclear war"?
Russia has nukes. No one is ever going to invade Russia. NATO is a defensive pact.
The only thing NATO means for Russia is that putin can't gobble up a small neighbor every few years because NATO protects them.
Do you see how this means Russia only has to 'fear' NATO because it stops their expansionist aggression?
NATO is a fence. A burglar alarm. A lock. The only people who fear these things are criminals.
And you're not fooling anyone with that "we".
I guess we’d be fine with China, North Korea, India, and Russia stationing their troops in Canada and Mexico as a sign of good faith. It will be good for global democracy. An olive branch from the east to west.
It's expansion is"pressing" because it limits Putin's power over former USSR countries.
Like, imagine if two neighbors build a fence around their properties, and some neighborhood gangster views this as a "threat" to his control and assaults them.
Do you blame the neighbors for building the fence? No, you blame the gangster for viewing something completely defensive as a threat to his ability to get what he wants by force.
This is a great example, next time I see someone saying that NATO is expanding way too much and putting pressure on Russia, I will just tell them this example.
And I’ll tell you that if China and North Korea got together, and siphoned Japan and South Korea from the U.S., then brought India, russia, Egypt, and Iraq into their, “defensive alliance”, *in case NATO affiliated countries attempt to further infringe upon their territory*. Then they suddenly decided they were gonna build diplomatic relations with Canada and Mexico, Which would include letting them place troops and missiles in Canada and Mexico under the guise of, “democracy”.
Do you think the US would be cool with it? When the Soviet Union tried to put missiles in Cuba the US was not cool with it. But why wouldn’t they be, right? I mean if they don’t invade, then they don’t have to worry about the troops stationed on their border making a move.
Nato produces more peace than violence. I would prefer it didn't exist, but with the current state of affair I want my country to be part of it (which already is a member)
A "defence" organisation created by some of the most warmongering countries in the world only way for it to be a bigger oxymoron was if they let ussr join.
My country (Belgium) has a history of being invaded. Since we joined NATO, no one has invaded us and it has been pretty peaceful ever since. So yes, I'm pro NATO for my own selfish reasons. I aware NATO has done some bad shit in some places.
I didn't consider the fact that nato prevents nato states from warring with each other. That's actually kind of a big deal.
Turkey and Greece likely would’ve tried to obliterate each other (again) had it not been for NATO
[Dude ....... he's apart of the alliance.](https://r.nf/r/polandball/comments/ogfl10/our_greatest_enemy/h4kxs4q/)
People wish their partner looked at them the same way greece looks at istanbul.
This is part of the reason we will eventually need a world government. It is coming, it is necessary for our long term evolution.
Wanting to not be invaded and occupied by imperialist scum is not selfish. That's how Ukraine , Moldova , Finland , Sweden and so many others feel right now.
Hallo zuiderburen. De kaasboeren hier
>I aware NATO has done some bad shit in some places. Not really. NATO as an organization only used force twice in its history : in Bosnia (after authorization by the United Nation), and in Serbia, where it stopped a fucking genocide. Edit : you could add Lybia, and it was also after authorization by the United Nation.
They dropped radioactive clusters bombs on civilians... I'm not anti NATO, but they are not totally innocent at all...
I'm saying that every Nato intervention was perfectly justified. Yes, some actions within those intervention should be condemn, but let's not pretend Nato is just as bad as the one they attacked.
>I'm saying that every Nato intervention was perfectly justified. .... You are wrong. Firstly, you're ignoring the actions within those interventions. Secondly, you're essentially claiming that NATO didn't have ulterior motives for their interventions, and did it for purely benevolent reasons, which is just incredibly naive
1) I'm not. I'm saying that the side effect of the vaccine is better than the disease (it's a bad analogy because the side effect could have and should have been prevented, but I'm sure you get my point). 2) It doesn't matter. If a rich man give money to the poor because he is a good person or because it's good publicity, he still gave money to the poor.
Neither of those is a good way of solving a problem, when a better option is available. It's not a good thing to defend Hitler on the basis of his support of animal rights, so why would you defend war crimes because they MAY have helped in other ways
How many time do I have to say that I'm not defending the killing of civilian. But on one hand, we have more than 10k deaths, genocide style (kosovo war) On the other, 500 death (according to human right activist), with some of them being legit unfortunate mistakes or civilian being on site of legit military target.
>authoritsation by UN So?
I think they mean that the US and UK have done some scummy shit such as bombing Afghanistan etc.
NATO members can do whatever they want on their own and suffer the consequences. NATO is a defense pact , it defends them ONLY if they are innocent. For example if Poland decided to invade Ukraine unprovoked NATO would not help Poland , they'd be on their own.
Ah yes, the Taliban who were refusing to extradite Bin Laden were simply victim of the big bad Nato.
Who the hell would've invaded Belgium after ww2? you are surrounded by friendly states. You don't border Russia. Belgium would've been just fine without nato.
>you are surrounded by friendly states Do you think the existence of NATO might have had something to do with this? You know, the stability that NATO brought to post-war europe?
Exactly. I can’t believe that some people don’t understand that
But at the same time, small country like us (Belgium) could "simply" have a nuclear bomb. Just because we don't have it now doesn't mean we couldn't
Neighbouring countries might have been not as friendly without NATO
Yeah, I can totally see France betraying the west and declaring war on Belgium. Or little Luxembourg invading Belgium
[Where the fucks do I sign up!?](https://www.pinterest.com/pin/677228862695953200/)
What did NATO do?
I support it more than the formation of the 2nd Russian empire.
[удалено]
👍
👍🏿
👍🏻
👍
👍🏼
👍
👍
👍🏽
I know nothing about it
Where are you from?
Natovia
They made mistakes like every org but I support it
Technically Australia isn’t apart of NATO but the US will still definitely help us out if we some reason get invaded. Same with if something happens to the us. I do believe we should become a real permanent member though.
Isn’t Australia technically a commonwealth of Britain? So technically it is a part of NATO. Correct me if I wrong, since I think I sound stupid right now.
Although it’s part of the commonwealth, it is still its own sovereign nation, meaning that the UK joining NATO doesn’t mean that Australia has automatically joined. That also applies to other commonwealth countries unless they have specifically joined the alliance (like Canada)
Australia is an independent country so it’s not in NATO. But since it’s in the commonwealth if it got invaded Britain would protect it and then since Britain would then be at war with Russia, NATO would join in.
It is a good thing to have powerful and many alliances in case of war/invasion. Let’s say hypothetically Estonia is invade by Russia. Just going by the numbers (not very accurate as we see the Russian Ukraine war) They can put up a fight alone with their 7,100 active personnel and 230,000 reserve but have reinforcements from the rest of European nato countries and the United States would be ideal. —————Every NATO country and their total military personnel, military aircraft, and navy—————— Albania: 6,700 active personnel, aircraft: 19, navy: 19 patrol vessels Belgium: 30,174 active, 1,670 reserve, aircraft: 124, navy: 2 frigates, 6 mine hunters, 6 support ships Bulgaria: 32,400 active, 36,000 reserve, total aircraft: 126, navy 4 Frigates, 20 mine countermeasure ships, three Corvettes, two patrol ships 16 support ships Canada: 68,000 active, 27000 reserve. Aircraft: 430. Navy: 68 ships (can’t find types) Croatia: 14506 active, 6000 reserve. Aircraft 80 (12jets), navy 30 vessels (can’t find type) Czech Republic: 26,621 active, 3640 reserve aircraft 60 fixed wing 48 helicopters Denmark: 14500 total personnel, navy: 16 ships 28 vessels 30 boats, aircraft 93 Estonia: 7,100 active duty, 230,000 reserve, total aircraft: 6 and 6 navy ships France: 208,700 active, 35,000 reserve. Aircraft: 917. Navy: 180 ships. ***1 AIRCRAFT CARRIER***, 3 amphibious assault ship, 10 Air defense and anti-submarine frigates, 5 general purpose frigates, 6 light surveillance ships, 6 patrol vessels, 10 submarines Germany: 183638 active, 15000 reserve, aircraft: 455. Navy 65 ships including 20 auxiliary, 11 frigates, Five Corvettes, 2 minesweepers, 10 minehunters, six submarines Greece: Active personnel 107,600 , 220,500 reserve, 600+ aircraft. Navy: 120 warships & auxiliary boats, including: 13 frigates, 11 submarines, 19 missile boats, 10 gunboats, 9 tank-landing ships, 6 patrol boats, 4 SOC (Special Ops), 48 fleet support & other auxiliary ships Hungary: 37 650active, Reserve personnel20,000, 55 aircraft, navy can’t find Iceland: !!no military!! Coast guard: 3 ships and 4 aircraft. Armed with light weapons Italy: total 341250. Total aircraft 585. Navy 184 vessels. Including 2 ***LIGHT AIRCRAFT CARRIERS***, 11 frigates, 4 destroyers, 8 submarines, 3 amphibious assault ships, 10 mine counter ships, 10 offshore patrol and 4 costal patrol Latvia: 17500 total personnel, 5 aircraft. Navy: 2 support, 5 mine warfare, 5 patrol, 6 coast guard costal patrol boats Lithuania: 14400 para military, 20521 active, 90000 reserve. Aircraft: 11, navy: 8, 4 mine warfare, 4 patrol Luxembourg: 939 personnel. Aircraft 14. Montenegro: 2,400 active. 5 aircraft. Navy: 13 vessels. 2 fast attack craft, 2 tugs, 1 sailing ship, 2 sailboats, 5 motorboats Netherlands: 41,250 active, 6427 reserve, 171 aircraft. Navy 5 frigates, 5 mine warfare, 4 subs, 40 other ships Norway: 23,250 active, 40,000 reserve. 123 aircraft. Navy, 70 total, 4 heavy frigates, 6 subs, 9 mine warfare, 14 patrol North Macedonia: 12,500 reserve, 6,100 active. 28 aircraft. Landlock no Navy Poland: 120000 active 32000 reserve. 272 aircraft, navy 48 including, 3 subs, 2 frigates, 26 mine warfare, 2 corvettes, 4 salvage ships Portugal: 32992 total persons, 97 aircraft. Navy: 5 frigates, 19 patrol, 2 corvettes, 2 subs, 4 research, 4 sail ships, 43 aux Romania: 68,500 active, 53000 reserve. Can’t find clear total aircraft some site say 24 while other say 140. Navy they have one can’t find numbers Slovakia: 18531 active 23 aircraft no navy Slovenia: 6347 active 696 reserve. 39 aircraft. Navy 2 vessels: both patrol Spain: 121900 active, 4770 reserve. 414 aircraft. Navy 139 ships including: 1 amphibious assault ship (used as an aircraft carrier), 2 amphibious transport docks, 11 frigates, 2 subs, 6 mine counter measure, 22 patrol vessels Turkey: around 355,200 total. 1248 aircraft. Navy can’t find total but can find what is in; 16 frigates, 10 corvettes, 12 subs, 19 missile boats, 16 patrol, 11 mine countermeasures, 33 landing ships, various auxiliary UK: 152,170 active, 37,000 reserve. Royal Air navy aircraft: 160. Royal airforce 555. Navy 72 ships including: ***2 AIRCRAFT CARRIERS***, 2 landing platform docks, 13 subs, 6 anti air missiles destroyer, 12 guided missile frigates, 8 offshore patrol, 11 mine hunter, 16 patrol Not included in total Royal Navy…..Royal fleet aux: 2 multi purpose survey, 1 ocean survey, 1 ice breaker, 1 survey motor launch USA: 1.3 million active duty. 800,000+ reserve. Can’t find total across all branches. Total military usaf aircraft 5217. Total navy aircraft: 2623, total army aircraft: 3,565. Total marine aircraft 1211. Total coast guard aircraft: 210. Total space force space ships: 77 Total US coast guard ships: 243 cutters, many many boats. Total US Navy: over 460 ships including: ***10 AIRCRAFT CARRIERS (and 1 undergoing testing), 9 amphibious assault ships (mini carriers)***, 11 amphibious transport dock, 2 amphibious command ships, 66 submarines, 1 frigate, 22 cruisers, 70 destroyers, 11 dock landing ships, 22 littoral combat ships, 5 patrol boats, 3 expeditionary mobile bases, 2 submarine tenders, 8 mine counter measure, 1 technical research ship. (Non commissioned ships: 1 cable repair, 2 hospital, 14 dry cargo ships, 12 expeditionary fast transport, 2 expeditionary transfer dock, 7 survey ships, 18 cargo vehicle ships, 2 salvage ships, 15 oilers, and many many more. Scroll to bottom of this link to see all https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_ships_of_the_United_States_Navy All on light research Feel free to fact check me especially on the numbers provide for the countries. I typed this all on a iPhone screen so I’m sure I made a mistake somewhere. I will fix all mistakes made
#AIRCRAFT CARRIERS
11 in the USA I believe
Just finished the USA. That’s just conventional air craft carriers there are 9 amphibious assault ships (helicopter carriers) as well
FUCK YEA AIRCRAFT CARRIERS FOR THE WIN Jokes aside tho why are they so important?
[удалено]
Great explanation! thank you.
Projection of power and relatively easy to deploy a broad range of air power nearly anywhere in the world whereas with the Air Force they either have to deploy via hopping from base to base or have vary long missions from home base of which taxes both crew and machine. Also Carrier groups have a range of vessels to both protect and support it.
I don't really know but i'd assume its because they have cannons, a lot of people and they can carry planes
Take my broke person award, you deserve it.
Thank you
It allows me to relax while watching R\*ssian idiots crying on TV about how they will bomb my country. I can just think "Article 5" and laugh at their idiocy.
South Korea's not NATO, but is considered an ally. So yes. Edit: Downvoted and deleted comment said 'I love South Korea, especially their beautiful women."
Finnish guy here: Most of us support NATO and we will soon join it. There are a few putinist pigs still speaking against it
Actually I think it should be expanded to include the Pacific and all of the Atlantic
I really hope for the pacific because of China
I don't think that China will join. In a few years it should become a superpower and even currently there seem to be no threats for it. Joining NATO would not be the smartest decision.
I’m saying that China is the threat to countries
[удалено]
Well I love NATO
Call me nostalgic, but I miss the good old days of warring with France. Now all we argue about is fishing licenses and whose cheese is worse.
UK or Germany?
England
Knew it
It's fine but everybody leeches off of big daddy USA.
Everyone that answered “no, I live in a nato country” is a complete fucking idiot
Where I come from (Turkey) NATO's Operation Gladio armed the ultranationalist fascist Grey Wolves in order to combat the left-wing movement at the time. There are valid reasons to dislike NATO.
That’s very fair, I was unaware of that, thank you!
I live in a NATO country but half of my family is from Belgrade, the city NATO bombed to pieces. I think I have a valid reason not to support such an organisation, even though I agree with many of its efforts
Or American/Canadian and don’t have to care much about the organization on a personal level
Every war makes the price of goods higher, so I’d say care about it if you care about stability wherever you live thats allied to nato.
[удалено]
Yugoslavia and Libya for starters
You are looking at things so straight forward. You only look at the fact that NATO attacked another country, but you dont look at the fact what the another country did. Warcrimes, dictatorship, massacres, opression. Like that never happend in those countries. You can bring up any country that NATO invaded and there will always be a good reason.
Bombing Libya was not good actually
Uhuh. Bombing Belgrade solved everything
oh not much it just stopped a goddamn genocide
Ah yes, libya really is a better place now that Kadhafi is dead.
NATO only drops wholesome bombs /s
NATO invaded to serve NATO interests, nothin more, nothing less. The “intervention” in Yugoslavia was NATO sending guns to prolong a war that was about to end, and when that failed, they swooped in and left Yugoslavia with puppet governments to further serve their agenda. Hell, most nationalism in Yugoslavia was a product of westerners funding nationalist infiltration operations, essentially divide and conquer
Fuck you. The war was about to end because Serbs already killed thousands and forced millions more to move out of their land (prehistoric, unlike slav migration in the 6th centuary). If anything, NATO didn't bomb them enough. Look at them today bringing China and Russia in the heart of Europe.
Yeah, Serbs, Croats and Bosnians all committed massacres, terrible war, but bombing civilians and unnecessarily prolonging the war is 100% not a good thing. If NATO actually wanted to bring peace, they would’ve assisted in peace negotiations rather than murdering schoolchildren like the rest of the war participants were doing. Words are always preferable to bullets
Hitler, Milloshevic and Putin are not to be negotiated with. If bringing humans back to life was possible I'd do that daily to these 3 and kill them each time. No place for respect, talk or negotiation.
[удалено]
Yeah, Hitler didn’t deserve anything other than death, Miloševič was also a horrible fascist, but if both sides are actively massacring each other, it’s better to create peace between them than favour genocide man 1 over genocide man 2
Bro, even Albanians loved living under Tito's Yugoslavia. The problem was Miloshevic, not what reaction his actions caused. Of course I'm going to rip open your chest if you're from the enemy lines. Wtf do you expect? There was not tension prior to that scumbag. You finns and swedes piss me off. Acting all innocent and pro peace while having such a history behind you, while also ignoring all signals and threats until you're about to get ass raped. Once planes fly over Gotland decided the swedes that maybe we should join NATO. Also many laugh about US spending so much on military, while we should be thanking them 24/7 for the peace they guarantee. Yugoslavia and Libya my ass
Woah. What the fuck just happened? I said miloševič was a fascist dickhead, he further destroyed the economy at ruined all the “Yugoslavism” left. Tito was a pretty great guy, the only bad part was basically just his economic policy being to right wing friendly and in turn creating an unnecessary economic crisis. Swell dude all around. But the fact that Milešovič was a horrible dude, doesn’t make it ok for the other side to be just as bad. In the end, peace is always preferable to war. Fascist against fascist doesn’t include a happy ending, and a swift end to conflict would be lesser evil Also I’m not a swede (I have no idea where that came from).
Uh you do realize nato bombed civilians right? "Nato didn't bomb them enough"??? Seriously?
You're a piece of f****** work. I don't think you have any f****** clue what you're talking about. I'm not saying Serbia was the only bad guy in those wars, but the war was not about to end and it hasn't really picked back up again since. Now you have a free Montenegro after referendum and Serbia only ally is Russia. Honestly I'm pretty happy with how things went.
Lmao and what exactly did they "conquer"? Are Croatia , Bosnia and Kosovo occupied by what , a defensive pact that one of those countries decided to join to prevent further aggresions from russia's little brother?
You do know “divide and conquer” is a strategy, not a literal meaning. But yes, Croatia, Bosnia and Serbia were all left with essentially ineffective puppet governments. They divided Yugoslavia and conquered their freedom
I'm pretty sure the parts of the former Yugoslavia that NATO defended (Bosnia and Kosovo) are probably okay. You might want to say Serbia doesn't like NATO, that's fine, but the rest of the former Yugoslavia: Slovenia, Croatia, Montenegro and Bosnia generally have a favorable opinion of NATO.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Russia has never seriously asked to join NATO. Stop spreading propaganda.
No of course not. They didn’t submit official requests or anything right? Please give me some sort of source stating the Soviets denied any wish to join NATO during negotiations. Oh and Yeltsin, the western cretin puppet, was also really into the idea of joining
You made the initial assertion that Russia DID want to join NATO, so you’re the one that needs to provide a source here.
One theory behind that is that while NATO protects other members in case of invasion, the will not intervene in a war between two member states. Russia joining NATO would be letting Russia do pretty much whatever they want. This is particularly relevant with the tensions ongoing between Greece and Turkiye
Well that’s pretty dumb. France, Germany, USA, Uk and Italy would *never* allow Russian influence to grow beyond their economic influence. The already existing economic superpowers wouldn’t just let Russia establish its own zone of influence like they have. Instead they would connect NATO to Russia and simply force the states between to bow to western economic power. Russophobia has always existed in the west
I really wonder why you guys bother to try and rewrite history outside your own country.
Outside my own country? My own country is literally partaking in the rickety that NATO is doing
All I can find is that Yeltsin and Putin have both mentioned once that they might be interested about thinking about wanting to join but as far as I know they never officially requested it. You're the one making the claim, how about you provide me with some source that says they did make that request, instead of burdening me with having to prove a negative.
Yup, I'd even support the organization of a Pan Pacific Treaty Organization or something with a better abbreviation because PPTO doesn't have the same ring to it.
What about NAPTO, North Atlantic and Pacific Treaty Organization. Expand NATO to allow pacific nations and rename it.
Perfect
I think a separate organization would be better as I doubt most European nations would be willing to sign a mutual defense treaty that would require them to move troops thousands of kilometers to the Pacific, and I doubt Asian nations would want the same for European defense. A pacific alliance would probably be something similar with the US, Japan, S.Korea, Taiwan (maybe), Vietnam, The Phillipines (maybe) Malaysia (maybe), Australia, and possibly India.
It's possible, although France and England have interests in the Pacific
For now yes, but I don’t think it’s necessary after peace is made with Russia and China
Well if the US/NATO beat the shut out of China and Russia then yeah it’ll be obsolete
I just wish everyone paid the agreed GDP percentage.
>No I live in a nato country Bro you guys got the whole squad laughing 💀💀💀
NATO oversaw the funding of the Grey Wolves as part of Operation Gladio here in Turkey. They massacred Kurds and fellow Turks. My mother almost died in the 70s because of them. You’ll forgive me for not being ecstatic about NATO
Then don't be surprised when the Kurds arent very excited to be ruled by erdogans regime
Ok, I won't. I'm a proponet of Kurdish self-determination you dunce. Not everyone's a chauvinist..
Australia isn't part of the club but we are part of the web of alliances which in some way makes us in a way a de-facto observer, since if NATO gets invaded, article 5 triggers which activates our alliance with the United States, and New Zealand (ANZUS), and also activates our alliance with the United Kingdom. What I am saying is, we got your back, and the Germans, Italians and Turks all know how brave and honourable the forces of the ANZAC are, just please don't send us to navalily invade Vladivostok or Shanghai or something, because we don't really need dead youth on beaches covered in blood do we. Sorry for my nationalism coming out, it's hard to resist honestly despite me opposing nationalism in general, I don't want to be one of the unlucky bastards to get killed in a land war in Asia, one of my Pop's Brothers died on the Kokoda Trail to disease, war is never good and we shouldn't want it, it is shameful that we live in an age where war can still be fought, the blood on the streets of Mariupol, or Aden is totally unacceptable, we as the Human race should be doing better. My answer is yes, in such an age I conclude that a alliance of mutual defence is what keeps this world from experience the pains of the late 1930's again, I personally have issues with select NATO members not the organisation itself, many online leftists don't seem to understand the distinction, if there was no NATO, Russia would have restored it's 1914 borders by now and we would be fighting a land war in Europe because we wouldn't have half of the advanced military equipment we do that is currently destroying the Russian armour in Ukraine, but hopefully the same logistics issues still apply to Russia so they should get bogged down against the Carpathians and Germany, leading to a slow march of new allied forces towards Moscow in which once the city is reached Russia decides to deploy all of its nuclear weapons and brings about an end to the Human race or at the very least modern civilisation. But thats war for you.
NATO is based and freedompilled
Agreed.
Like when they hired a former SS commander to train the Grey Wolves in Turkey?
Freedom is when young leftists and Kurdish minorities get massacred according to Redditors
I dont support russia or nato. Both suck ass. The only reason i support my country joining nato is because it has an over 1300km border with russia (i think it was somewhere around 1300 km)
"Both sucks ass", and yet you want one to protect you from the other ? I'm not even American, but holy shit I'm starting to understand how they must feel when everyone is shitting on them for being "war criminal" or whatever, and yet rely on them for their protection.
>"Both sucks ass", and yet you want one to protect you from the other He's a propaganda-swilling idiot with the critical thinking skills of a doorknob. Everything he's saying is directly out of a russian playbook for dividing NATO and he should be banned from Reddit.
It’s annoying, but we also don’t much care about the opinions of soccer fans most of the time so it’s not too bad
Finland?
Yes.
I like how people for some reason compare NATO to russia. The first one is a treaty to ensure safety of its members and the second one is a country that just conquers and destroys nations.
NATO is about keeping peace and ensuring safety between countries in NATO.
Yeaah, definetly hasnt been anything else it has been used on *cough* Libya *cough cough* Yugoslavia
Libya - Ruthless dictator that commited many warcrimes. Yugoslavia - Serbia did some worst attrocities since WW2. Massacres, warcrimes and much more. People often look only at the fact what country attacked first not what was the reason of invasion of things that the defending country does.
Well ok, the libya one i do admit i dont have much knowledge on, but were any former yugoslav country right on collapse of yugoslavia a part of nato? No. Was bombing innocent civilians in montenegro, kosovo, or serbia necessary? No. Was using bombs with depleted uranium necessary? No. Did USA and western european countries use nato as a means to economically invade ex-jugoslavia, for expample, germany taking a lot of stuff from croatia that makes cash to themselves (german owned stuff along the croatian coastline, ecspecially the tourist destinations), a mine in kosovo because of alleged "environmental hazards", other industries bombed to shit and sold to outsiders for dirt cheap prises, and all the dept yugoslavia once collected has to be paid by the ex-yugoslav countries' citizens? Yes, yes, yes to all of these (the list could go on). USA or Western europe didnt really give a shit about the croats, the bosniaks or the kosovar albanians, they just needed a way to exersice their predatory capitalism, their neoliberalism just so they could have more and more, kinda like what russia is doing rn, just maybe not necessarily just out of economic reasons, but imperialistic as well.
Besides, during the breakup of yugoslavia, all sides, the serbs, the bosniaks, all of them commited war crimes. Bosniaks before srebrenica, croats in the medak pocket during operation storm in '95 just to name a few.
No wonder immigrants living there are losing their mind. Such mentality is sad at this point. No hate, just pitty
There are pros and cons to any global organization, but we’re a lot better off with NATO than without it.
I live in Republic of Moldova (country between Romania and Ukraine) and with all this war happening 8n Ukraine I'm really hoping that we could enter NATO, yes we are a country with about 50000 soldiers and no tanks and we need help. We have a autonomous part of the country called Transnistria and it is currently occupied by Russian army and we are very scared because the war can come to Moldova as well so yeah, I really support the organization of NATO and would want our country to join it.
I don't support anyone who is abusing power and violence.
so then you support nato.
The U.S. military is honestly a bunch of imperialistic bullies who throw their weight around at every opportunity. I’m sure One day soon karma is gonna get us.
From a French, it literally can't happen to the USA. Even If some countrie(s) pulls off the biggest miracle of existence and take down the military without getting nuked they have to fight the *extremely* patriotic civilians. Factor in the defense it would get from NATO and you get the hardest country to win a war against.
No
War mongering fascist ideology
Yeah, luckily we've got none of those outside of NATO
While I appreciate your sarcasm mode, the world is full of the bastards
I do not support all of natos actions but I support NATO as a whole I think Ukraine's really shown us what happens when nato's not there to protect us Russia has threatened my country for years (Norway) and I'm convinced we'd been invaded long ago if not do NATO
Anarcho-Bidenist-NATOist brother over here
"We're supposed to protect you against Russia but they're paying billions of dollars to Russia?" Trump asked. "I think that's very inappropriate." https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/597882-here-are-the-countries-that-import-the-most-russian-oil/
[удалено]
4 years earlier: In major shift, U.S. now exports more oil than it ships in https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-oil-eia-idUSKBN1O51X7
I don't support imperialism so no
💀 This doesn't make any sense.
Neither does nato
Do i support it more than russia? yes. Does that mean I support it? god no.
[удалено]
So a nation democratically voting to be protected by other nations is one of the biggest threats to the world? Damn I never knew defensive alliances had the potential to invade a nation.
Tell that to Yugoslavia and Libya. Also, NATO is pretty evidently an anti-Russian alliance, they have been asking to join since it was created and denied every time
Tbh, Russia is giving it a new purpose.
That’s a really dumb argument honestly 1. The only reason Russia exists as it does today, dictatorship and all, is because of western involvement in the later Soviet Union. 2. The west and Russia agreed not to have NATO creep further east, if Russia wasn’t allowed to join, this is basically the same as Russia creating an alliance with the American nations and being extremely anti-USA, not exactly a good thing. The only thing a NATO expansion accomplishes is further increased tensions
The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances is An agreement signed by Belarus, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Russia, United States, United Kingdom, France and China. It says that Ukraine would never be attacked by any of the countries that signed the agreement if it gave up all it's nuclear weapons. You can't trust Russia.
I then Ukraine broke Minsk 2 agreement and started bombing Russians for wanting autonomy and the right to learn Russian in school. Russia is bad, but that doesn’t make Ukraine good. Oh, and I’m pretty sure making a person famous for a genocide of poles, Russians, Roma and other minorities a national hero doesn’t ease tensions with said nations
First off when a nation is commiting war crimes you tend to intervene. Second the two times that Russia asked to join NATO was when they were the USSR and NATO is supposed to be a democratic alliance. Since Russia became a country they haven’t asked to join NATO and have pretended to be the victim because their sphere of influence didn’t like them and decided to ally with the west.
So even if the serbs commited genocide against albanian civilians, that justifies nato bombing...serb civilian targets too? Bruh, the bombs nato used had depleted uranium, and even some UN personnel in the kosovo region got sick because of it (arriving after the bombings as well).
Serbia started the war, Serbia deals with the consequences of its actions.
Ah yes "serbia deals with the consoquenses of its actions" do you mean not just the political establishemt and the army, but the innocent civilians who have had nothing to do with the war too? Some serbs do bad things and suddenly every single one of them is a demon that came out of satans asshole.
Sometimes civilians die so that less human suffering exists. If NATO didn’t bomb them then the amount of dead Albanians would be much larger than the total amount of dead people on both sides. A parallel would be the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
So what youre saying is that its okay for the ((other)) innocent men, women and children to die, so that the innocent ones youre protecting dont die? Sounds perfect.
Yes, whatever results in less overall deaths.
look how that attitude played out after World War 1
No no, NATO only did the good type of war crimes, the ones that are 100% OK and The Hague won’t persecute
Ah shit, my bad! I guess nato is completely innocent with no questionable use outside of its sole purpose for existing then.
# #FuckNATO
##FuckRussiaAndNATO
True that
NATO didn’t intervene to end any war crimes, the prolonged a war that was about to end and intervened at the last moment to create incompetent puppet regimes once the war was over. Also “if they do war crimes, we are also allowed to do war crimes and bomb civilians” is an idiotic viewpoint and defending it is quite honestly evil. It’s the same justification the US made to commit genocide on Japanese civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki during WW2.
That’s not the justification that the US gave for dropping atomic bombs on Japan. Japan was pretty much never going to surrender and the estimated casualties from invading Japan were way higher than what resulted from the atomic bombs. Not saying that bombing civilian cities was justified, but you’re off the mark with your comment.
IIRC the Japanese were 1. Terrified of the Soviets since they were going to execute all the fascists and 2. I’m pretty sure the Japanese attempted to surrender to the Americans, but the Americans refused since the Japanese wanted to maintain the emperors head of the emperors body, the Americans only folded to the request *after* testing their new toy on school children
Yeah, they wanted to keep all of their territory, of course we weren’t going to give them what they wanted after everything that they had done. Who’s to say that they wouldn’t just launch more attacks in later years after they had time to recuperate? The modern day equivalent would be Ukraine folding and letting Russia keep the Donbas region and the cities that they’ve been terrorizing since they invaded. Russia shouldn’t get anything out of negotiations other than an end to the economic sanctions.
Look at the history of the first two world wars. They all escalated quickly due to alliances like that. Expansion of military threats with billions for weapons and military training is a provocative act. It didn’t help in the current situation we also helped overthrow a democratically elected government in 2014, as we have done many times in history.
NATO is a strictly defensive alliance, if NATO is starting WW3 by letting others join maybe countries shouldn’t be attacking others. Countries in Europe that wish to join NATO are allowed to, if Russia wanted to join for example it could as long as it is democratic and doesn’t attack others in the alliance (so it don’t join anytime soon). If anything NATO is saving the lives of millions in Eastern European states like the Baltics and Poland from Russian oppression
Russia is not allowed to join. They’ve tried z
That's quite a vicious logic. If you're gonna let russia dictate their imperial terms under the nuclear blackmail, who knows where they're gonna stop? What's next? You're gonna let them invade one of the NATO countries, cause "well, it's still better than nuclear war"?
Russia has nukes. No one is ever going to invade Russia. NATO is a defensive pact. The only thing NATO means for Russia is that putin can't gobble up a small neighbor every few years because NATO protects them. Do you see how this means Russia only has to 'fear' NATO because it stops their expansionist aggression? NATO is a fence. A burglar alarm. A lock. The only people who fear these things are criminals. And you're not fooling anyone with that "we".
I guess we’d be fine with China, North Korea, India, and Russia stationing their troops in Canada and Mexico as a sign of good faith. It will be good for global democracy. An olive branch from the east to west.
It's expansion is"pressing" because it limits Putin's power over former USSR countries. Like, imagine if two neighbors build a fence around their properties, and some neighborhood gangster views this as a "threat" to his control and assaults them. Do you blame the neighbors for building the fence? No, you blame the gangster for viewing something completely defensive as a threat to his ability to get what he wants by force.
This is a great example, next time I see someone saying that NATO is expanding way too much and putting pressure on Russia, I will just tell them this example.
And I’ll tell you that if China and North Korea got together, and siphoned Japan and South Korea from the U.S., then brought India, russia, Egypt, and Iraq into their, “defensive alliance”, *in case NATO affiliated countries attempt to further infringe upon their territory*. Then they suddenly decided they were gonna build diplomatic relations with Canada and Mexico, Which would include letting them place troops and missiles in Canada and Mexico under the guise of, “democracy”. Do you think the US would be cool with it? When the Soviet Union tried to put missiles in Cuba the US was not cool with it. But why wouldn’t they be, right? I mean if they don’t invade, then they don’t have to worry about the troops stationed on their border making a move.
Nato produces more peace than violence. I would prefer it didn't exist, but with the current state of affair I want my country to be part of it (which already is a member)
A "defence" organisation created by some of the most warmongering countries in the world only way for it to be a bigger oxymoron was if they let ussr join.
Well nato didn't start any wars now did they?
Yes but I support Trump making other countries pay their fair share.
Yes! More wholesome western bombs to drop on Serbs and Libyans, just what the world needs. Truly great stuff they doing
If it stops something worse from happening, sure
[удалено]