cross-posted from: https://piefed.social/post/1363168
this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2026
608 points (95.0% liked)
YUROP
733 readers
4 users here now
Welcome to YUROP
The Ultimate Eurozone of Culture, Chaos, and Continental Excellence
A glorious gathering place to celebrate (and lovingly roast) the lands, peoples, quirks, and contradictions of Her Most Magnificent Europa. From the fjords to the Med, the steppes to the Atlantic spray, this is a shrine to everything that makes Europe gloriously weird, wonderfully diverse, and occasionally passive-aggressive in 24 languages.
Here we toast:
🇪🇺 The progressive Union of Peace (and paperwork)
🧀 The freest of health care
🍷 The finest of foods
🏳️🌈 The liberalest of liberties
🌍 The proud non-members and honorary cousins
💶 And the eternal dance of unity, confusion, and cultural banter.
Post memes, news, satire, linguistic wars, train maps, cursed food photos, Eurovision fever, propaganda and whatever makes you scream “only in YUROP.”
Leave your stereotypes at the border control and enjoy the ride.
founded 9 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Hardly imperialistic. Sweden's stance toward Finland and Norway has always been union rather than protectorate. Sweden did hurt its native population in the North and is still not doing a great job on that front, but imperialism is not the word you're looking for here.
NATO?
Yes indeed, they’re part of NATO now, thanks for highlighting that positive development. Any step that can be taken against the russian dictatorship is a good one.
NATO is still an imperialist tool.
Yes, the aggressive action of too effectively not letting other people invade you. /s
How dare NATO countries not allow to be invaded?! Don't they know might is right?
Wait...
NATO is "defensive" like the IDF is. It's defensive of imperialist countries that export capital to super-exploit the global south, preventing any backlash from reaching the imperial core. The difference between NATO and the Alliance of Sahel States, for example, is that the countries banding together in NATO all benefit from imperialism, while the Sahel States are banding together to kick out imperialists. Both are millitary alliances, but one is highly reactionary while the other is progressive.
Sure, I guess if you want an invasion of the West to work it's a bad thing.
The IDF isn't a fair comparison. They do a whole lot of stuff, unlike NATO which mainly prepares, and much of it does not meet the standard of defence to anyone's satisfaction but Israel and maybe the US.
What I want is for the end of imperialism and the adoption of global socialism. NATO stands on the side preserving imperialism.
Well, that's a natural place to end, but I'm curious. What would global socialism look like, according to you? If some regional national group wants do do something very not socialist, like I dunno, forced marriages, are they stopped, or allowed to? And what about groups that are almost but not quite a nation, like you tend to find anywhere with a long history?
Progressive movements are to be supported, reactionary movements are to be opposed. If a regional group wishes to, say, reinstate capitalism or feudalism, then this is to be corrected as bloodlessly as is feasible. Impulses towards reaction fade over time as socialism solidifies, but they definitely exist for at least a few generations after socialism is established.
National liberation is a pre-requisite for socialism, only then do borders begin to fade. In the interim, an internationalist federation of socialist polities would exist.
Alright, thanks for the answer. As you would certainly know, socialism grew out of liberalism. Trying to connect it back to ancient traditional societies (non-Western or Jewish or Christian) has always seemed like a stretch to me. I'll paraphrase that as "we wouldn't unquestioningly support every non-Western nation, and would only have to deal with it for a while anyway".
What about the second question, though. What makes a nation in the first place?
Socialism didn't necessarily grow out of liberalism, and in many cases socialism has been established in societies that are distinctly Eastern, not Western. Socialism isn't something uniquely European, but generally human.
Either way, a nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life and culture. Much has been written on nations in the Marxist canon, and many bend these general observations. Language in particular is an underrated area of Marxist studies.
Are you thinking of the way hunter-gatherer societies run? Or maybe you're including gift economies as well? Feudalism obviously is right out, and that's like 90% of economics in any agriculturalist society, although the exact hierarchy can be anything.
Marx, at least, wouldn't have known that. It was the Victorian era of social sciences where the world was put on a spectrum of primitive vs. advanced. Marx just had everyone going through his version of the stages equally.
Sure, I guess that's pretty standard. I won't pick at it more.
Interesting. I do love my linguistics.
I'm not referring to the idea of "primitive vs. advanced," but the understanding of socialism as a higher developed mode of production than capitalism. It doesn't exist because some European thought of it, but because the mode of production had developed to a point where it could be observed as a natural trend. Eastern Marxism is entirely compatible with this idea, and while Marx's ideas and writings are core to them, Eastern Marxists did not abandon their entire history.
As for linguistics and Marxism, here's a brief page with further reading if you like.
You either don't know what NATO is, or you don't know what "imperialism" means.
Imperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism defined by the export of finance capital, super-exploitation of subjugated nations, and unequal exchange enforced by state power. NATO was not founded to protect democracy but to secure the geopolitical conditions for Western capital to extract surplus value. The narrative of defending freedom is merely a facade to obscure this class function.
The alliance institutionalized a transatlantic arms market guaranteeing demand for Western arms manufacturers, facilitating finance capital export while enforcing Euro-American hegemony. It standardizes military procurement to ensure profits flow back to core industries, maintaining the superiority required to enforce unequal exchange rates and resource extraction abroad. This is the material function of the organization beyond the rhetoric.
History disproves the democratic pretense immediately. Portugal was a founding member while under a fascist dictatorship, using NATO logistics to wage colonial wars in Africa. France and Belgium, also founders, were violently enforcing colonial rule in Algeria and the Congo at the alliance's formation. NATO coordinated with these regimes to protect imperial property relations, proving it exists to enforce the global hierarchy that makes super-exploitation possible.
Yes, the famous capitalist society of Ancient Rome.
No, mate. Imperialism is the maintaining and extending of power over foreign nations. NATO does nothing like that.
Ah, OK, so you have no clue what NATO is, got it.
Where else would the West be buying weapons during the Cold War? Russia? :D
Yeah, because NATO had nothing to do with democracy. Like, what pretence? Where the fuck did you even get that from? Maybe, I don't know, read the Wiki entry on NATO?
Ancient Rome was an empire. Modern imperialism is a specific stage of capitalist development: export of finance capital, monopoly concentration, unequal exchange enforced by state power. Mixing them up isn't a gotcha, it just shows complete illiteracy in the realm of political theory.
You dodged the Portugal point entirely. Fascist dictatorship, founding NATO member, using alliance supply chains to wage colonial war in Africa. France and Belgium same deal. If NATO was about "democracy," how does that fit? Or do we just ignore the actual history?
And on your "buy weapons from Russia?" joke: the USSR applied to join NATO in 1954. They were rejected. The whole point was to have a permanent external threat to justify massive arms spending, lock in Western defense contracts, and discipline allied capitals.
Also wikipedia isn't a neutral source on US-led institutions. It's edited by volunteers, heavily influenced by Western narratives, and routinely policed for "fringe" critiques of state power. Citing it as the final word on NATO is like citing a Pentagon press release and calling it independent journalism.
If the argument is just "NATO good because wiki says so," then yeah, we're not having the same conversation. But if you want to engage in actual analysis and conversation like an adult, as opposed to shouting talking points ad nauseum like a petulant child I'm all for that.
OK, if you mean "imperialism via specifically means of economic pressure", sure, call it "modern imperialism" or something.
But "imperialism" is what I already said it is. Britain was pushing imperialist agendas before capitalism was a thing. Same with China, Japan, Spain, russia, Germany, France, etc., etc.
I didn't dodge it. I answered it specifically - you have no clue what NATO is. NATO has nothing to do with what political system is running in a member country. It's a military alliance. Has nothing to do with democracy.
"The murderer asked to be let in the house. He was rejected".
Stop gobbling up russian propaganda. The threat was USSR. They were the ones who sent tanks to suppress the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and the 1968 Prague Spring. They were the ones who subjugated the conquered countries, and attempted russifying them.
NATO is a defensive pact against that aggression. Members consist only and specifically of countries that asked to join, nobody was forced.
Then how about you just open your eyes to what's going on in the world. Show me ONE instance of NATO sending tanks to suppress an independence movement in a country.
No, the argument is "NATO good because they don't subjugate or attempt genocide"
Oh, look, you're already nearing the point of flinging personal attacks? One even say: "like a petulant child"? I guess discussion is difficult when you're arguing against reality.
Again imperialism isn't just "strong countries pushing weaker ones around." That's a surface description, not an analysis. The modern form is structural: monopoly control of capital, export of finance rather than just goods, and a global system where wealth flows upward from subjugated economies to core powers through enforced unequal exchange. Pre-capitalist empires extracted tribute; this system extracts surplus value through debt, trade terms, and military backing. Conflating the two isn't a rebuttal, it's just avoiding the actual analysis of the mechanism.
Then why does the treaty's preamble commit members to "safeguarding the freedom and common heritage of democratic peoples"? Why were "democratic reforms" mandatory for post-Cold War expansion? You can't dismiss the values rhetoric when it's useful, then hide behind "just a military alliance" when the Portugal contradiction hits. Fascist Portugal proved the priority: strategic alignment and capital protection over any real commitment to self-determination.
The USSR applied to test whether NATO was about collective defense or containing any state outside Western capital's orbit. The rejection confirmed the latter. Yes, the Soviet state committed atrocities, but NATO's function wasn't moral arbitration. It was to lock Western Europe into a US-led military-economic bloc. The "Soviet threat" was instrumentalized to justify permanent arms spending, discipline allied capitals, and secure markets for Western defense monopolies. That's in US diplomatic records, not just "propaganda."
That's a deliberately narrow frame. NATO doesn't always need boots on the ground: bombing Yugoslavia in 1999 to break a sovereign state, arming proxies to overthrow Libya in 2011, backing the fascist coup in Greece in 1967. But the deeper point isn't about direct occupation, it's about how military hegemony enforces the economic conditions for extraction: debt traps, structural adjustment, resource access. NATO secures the airspace; finance capital does the rest.
That's a embarrassingly low bar. By that logic, any alliance that doesn't commit genocide is "good." Meanwhile, NATO's actions have enabled mass death through sanctions, bombing campaigns, and destabilization. "Not genocide" isn't a defense, it's a deflection from the material function: enforcing a global hierarchy where wealth flows from the periphery to the core.
You called my analysis "propaganda," told me to "read Wikipedia," and dismissed structural critique as "talking points." Don't pose as the adult when your rebuttal is moral scorekeeping and establishment sources. If you want to debate how the system actually works (finance flows, military backing, unequal exchange) I'm here. But you clearly have a narrative and talking points you like.
It literally is.
From Britannica:
That's not imperialism, that's just capitalism. It is tied to imperialism, because the countries with the most capital are the ones with the most imperialistic policies to boot, but what you described here is just flat out capitalism.
It does not.
Because the 1995 study found that strong democracies contributed to stable and peaceful existence. NATO member countries can promote democratic principles, but NATO itself is uninterested in the underlying system of a country because it's a military alliance.
Portugal "contradiction" is from 1950s.
The "democracy contributes to peace" study is from 1995.
I'll need you draw me a graph of where exactly you see a problem here.
Correct, it was a political provocation. Pointless, considering NATO was specifically designed to defend the West from russia.
Not a single person on the planet was surprised.
It would've been much harder to instrumentalise it if the Soviets didn't confirm time and again, that the spending was necessary.
And, again, the spending was mostly on the side of the US. Europe was famously lacking in this regard to the point where Trump 1.0 threatened to withdraw US from NATO if the other member countries didn't increase their spending.
That wasn't NATO, that was the UN.
Again, that was the UN, not NATO.
Once more, not NATO. That was the US. Possibly some more member countries, but it was not NATO.
That's not NATO, that's capitalism and politics.
Again: you have no idea what NATO is and it painfully shows.
Compared to the ones that do? Correct.
NATO has no capability of imposing sanctions.
The ONLY "bombing campaign" by NATO was in Afghanistan in 2001 because that was the ONLY time when Article 5 was called and member-countries responded as NATO.
Again, you're not talking about NATO, because it has no tools to do any of that. That's just capitalism you're angry with.
Yup. all of that is still true. Even Wikipedia would give you the basic fundamentals of why NATO cannot impose sanctions or force economic decisions on countries.
You're just ignorant, mate. You're angry at NATO for being what it is not, and every point you mention proves that you just don't know what NATO is.
Read a bit, learn some, then we can talk. As is, the discussion pointless.
The preamble explicitly commits members to "safeguarding the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law." Lying about an easily verifiable fact isn't a rebuttal, it's just embarrassing.
Then you don't understand how capitalism operates at scale. Military alliances aren't separate from economic systems, they enforce them. When NATO standardizes procurement, secures trade routes, and backs regime change, it's not "just capitalism" floating in a vacuum. It's capitalism with teeth.
History doesn't expire because it's inconvenient. Portugal used NATO-supplied weapons to wage colonial war into the 1970s. France used NATO intelligence in Algeria. Belgium used NATO logistics in Congo. The alliance didn't "accidentally" include fascist colonizers, it coordinated with them. That's not a graph problem; that's a priorities problem.
This is dishonest. NATO executed the Yugoslavia bombing campaign under a UN mandate. NATO led the Libya intervention under a UN mandate. The Greece coup was US-backed, yes, but NATO never suspended a fascist junta that violated its own "democratic principles." You're splitting hairs to dodge institutional responsibility. When the alliance provides the command structure, intelligence, and logistics, it's NATO.
Sure. And the Marshall Plan was just generosity. US defense contractors didn't lobby for NATO standardization. Congress didn't tie aid to arms purchases. This isn't conspiracy, it's documented policy. Europe wasn't "naive"; it was integrated into a hierarchy that served core capital.
Military power and economic power aren't separate spheres. NATO secures the conditions for capital to operate: sea lanes, airspace, regime stability. You think finance capital enforces unequal exchange by itself? It doesn't. It has gunboats. NATO is the gunboat coordination mechanism.
You lied about the treaty preamble. You dismissed fascist Portugal as "old news." You pretended NATO had no role in Yugoslavia or Libya because "UN." You reduced structural analysis to "that's just capitalism" like the two aren't intertwined. That's not good faith engagement. You have only shown deflection, arrogance, and intellectual laziness.
I'm done. I don't want to waste more time on someone who either can't engage basic political economy or chooses not to. You've made it clear you're not interested in reality, just the branding. All the best to you.
Maybe it's a language barrier, but do you not understand the difference between "safeguarding the freedom and common heritage of democratic peoples" and "safeguarding the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy"?
Or is it historical ignorance, with how it is considered common knowledge that the western civilisation grew from the Ancient Greek and Ancient Roman civilisations, both famously implementing the very first democratic tools, and Europe being commonly accepted as the birthplace of democracy?
It would only be "teeth" if NATO wasn't a defensive alliance but rather an empire, like the USSR. Standardisation was also not done because some people wanted to enforce economic policies. It was done because the military already went through two massive wars where the lack of standardisation was causing massive logistical issues.
Again: you know nothing about what NATO is.
NATO doesn't "supply weapons" because NATO has no factories to build weapons. It's a military alliance.
France used French intelligence in Algeria.
Belgium relied on logistics from the US, not from NATO, in Congo. There was also a large UN contingent. UN is not NATO.
The alliance included fascist colonisers because they were in control of the military. NATO is a military alliance, it doesn't concern itself with the economic or political systems of its members.
No, it didn't. The UN resolution called for military involvement, UN member countries provided contingents. This had nothing to do with NATO other than the fact that some NATO members were included. Russia was part of these operations too.
It's like saying "WHO executed the Yugoslavia bombing campaign" because all militaries involved were from WHO-member countries.
Again: you have no clue what NATO is. It couldn't do anything like that because it has no power over anything. It's a defensive military alliance.
Yeah, yeah. WHO was responsible for the Greece coup. Sure.
What does the Marshall Plan (1947-1948) have to do with NATO (1949)?
Of course the did. They'd be insane not to. But the agreement came from the fact that they had their massive actually functioning military industry behind their lobbying. It was a "smart" (and short-sighted) decision to rely on the US to this extent, but it's not like all members states immediately copied everything the US did. France and Germany famously have their own, strong military industries.
Case in point: nobody in Europe is even considering the switch from 5.56 to 6.8x51 for infantry rifles, like the US already did, because nobody's industry is ready to properly support that.
Explain the fact that France, Germany, and Denmark retained strong and independent military industry then.
Correct, but NATO has no saying over economic power, and very little saying over military power. NATO is the vehicle for inter-country military cooperation, integration, standardisation. NATO doesn't even have the ability to call any military power to action.
Sea lanes and airspace, yes. It has nothing to do regime stability (as showcased by what was happening in France, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania, Turkey, Greece, Spain, Czechia, or Netherlands, with their either massive anti-government protests, or attempts at killing the democratic rule of law).
Of course it does. That's the best possible deal for any capitalist - gain more than you're actually paying for.
NATO cannot use "gunboats", because NATO is not a singular entity. It's an alliance. A member country's military can be ordered to use "gunboats", but that's got nothing to do with NATO.
Again: maybe it's a language barrier thing, but I very much did not lie.
Yeah, I'm not getting on your ignorance bandwagon, how uncouth of me.
50% of the two of us are showing intellectual laziness, and it's not me. I'm just stating facts.
You talking to a mirror right now?
Likewise! I sincerely hope you get out from under the propaganda umbrella (I don't know if it's Chinese or russian, the effect is the same) and start perceiving reality as it is.
Thanks for the advice obergruppenfuhrer you definitely are perceiving reality as you run defense for the Epstein alliance 🤣 👉
Wow, you surrendered that discussion real fast and real childish! I'm actually impressed!
There's no discussion to be had with a reichsfuhrer such as yourself I'm afraid. You simply love the Reich too much to engage in good faith.
Vatnik?