this post was submitted on 06 Jan 2024
144 points (80.8% liked)

Political Memes

7989 readers
2132 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

No AI generated content.Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] lennybird@lemmy.world 45 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

In a magical fairy-tale land, yes, defense alliances shouldn't need to exist.

In reality: NATO is the only reason NATO countries weren't attacked by Putin's act of blatant imperial aggression.

[–] PugJesus@kbin.social 25 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean, honestly, the most anti-NATO position is "Russia shouldn't have attacked Ukraine", considering that there was an open question of "Why the fuck is NATO still around?" in some countries before Russia's act of blatant imperialism.

Russia's attack on Ukraine revitalized NATO both in purpose and in popularity. Fucking insane what a self-defeating action that was in terms of international interests on Russia's part.

[–] lennybird@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

Agreed, which leads me to believe that this wasn't the primary motivation for Putin in the first place but just good bullshit for his gullible domestic base.

As Naomi Klein spells out in The Shock Doctrine, such manufactured crises provide incentive to produce radical change. In this case:

  • Putin's consolidation of power and proverbial nights of long knives (or high windows) as he kills off oligarchs and opponents.

  • Commiting ethnic genocide within his own borders by prioritizing minorities, prisoners, and impoverished to the Frontlines with no hope of survival.

  • Clamping down on domestic leftism and independent media.

  • Carrying out the playbook of neo-nazi Aleksandr Dugin and revitalizing the so-called might of the Russian empire.

Putin did think and have fair reason to believe he could seize Ukraine for very little cost both economically and geopolitically.

... But at this point it is all for saving face and legacy. Even if he took Ukraine in the next year (and he likely will never get more than 17% of the initial goals he had), it would almost never be worth it for the damage already done to Russia economically, intellectually, and geopolitically.

[–] JackOfAllTraits@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

How is Nato a defencive alliance? All of it's operations were offensive. That is not even a joke. Yugoslavia and Afganistan... Nato is just a formalization of Eueopean reliance on their US overlord. It beings protection in a same way mafia does - with a hefty price, albeit moral and political, not only financial.

[–] 100_percent_a_bot@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

All offensive operations were offensive, sure but the reason there were no defensive actions was that no one is stupid enough to mess with nato.

The biggest benefit of nato though is countering nuclear proliferation and making it so that less countries develop and possess word ending doomsday devices. This means the chances of us nuking ourselves back to the stone age are somewhat smaller.. So that's something I guess

[–] lennybird@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

These interventions, barring Yugoslavia, were largely spurred by United Nations votes, meaning NATO was acting as an arm of democratic votes. Yugoslavia was the exception of course, because both Russia and China would veto intervention of the atrocity taking place there.

Afghanistan triggered Article 5, which is the entire point of the defensive alliance.

NATO was literally losing support until the moment Russia invaded and made it relevant. NATO doesn't make some mafia structure as you suggest; the institution itself isn't even chaired by the US right now and the defense forces and military production are still largely in independent control of each member. This isn't some warlord setup; it's a voluntary club with a pretty explicit charter.

[–] JackOfAllTraits@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The fact that Afghanistan triggered Article 5 should tell you everything you need to know

[–] lennybird@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

In the end the whole thing was botched, but the US was attacked and said individuals must harbor behind some nation-state.

In what world do you think a counterattack is not justified?

As I explained: Not a mafia.