Some on the Left Hate NATO... here's why - TLDR News

Sign up for Brilliant (and the first 200 people get 20% off an annual premium subscription): brilliant.org/tldreu
Some on the left of the political aisle aren't happy about the rising prominence of NATO. They might not side with Putin, but they're not exactly happy. So in this video we unpack why there's a hated of NATO and if it's really justified.
💬 Twitter: / tldrnewseu
📸 Instagram: / tldrnewseu
🎞 TikTok: / tldrnews
🗣 Discord: tldrnews.co.uk/discord/
💡 Got a Topic Suggestion? - forms.gle/mahEFmsW1yGTNEYXA
Support TLDR on Patreon: / tldrnews
Donate by PayPal: tldrnews.co.uk/funding
TLDR Store: www.tldrnews.co.uk/store
TLDR TeeSpring Store: teespring.com/stores/tldr-spring
Learn About Our Funding: tldrnews.co.uk/funding
TLDR is all about getting you up to date with the news of today, without bias and without filter. We aim to give you the information you need, quickly and simply so that you can make your own decision.
TLDR is a completely independent & privately owned media company that's not afraid to tackle the issues we think are most important. The channel is run by just a small group of young people, with us hoping to pass on our enthusiasm for politics to other young people. We are primarily fan sourced with most of our funding coming from donations and ad revenue. No shady corporations, no one telling us what to say. We can't wait to grow further and help more people get informed. Help support us by subscribing, following, and backing us on Patreon. Thanks!

[@megasin1]

You know, all those points at the end can be true at the same time. NATO can be US lead, cause tension and promote cpaitalism at the same time as Russia wanting to expand (regardless of tension) and European countries wanting to join NATO for defence purposes.

[@kfhroe8262]

Agreed!

[@merrymachiavelli2041]

I completely agree with this! So often, things are presented as all or nothing choices where you have to pick a side which is 'right', in reality, it's a lot more messy. Also, another factor not really mentioned here is the relationship between EU expansion and NATO expansion. EU countries already have a great deal of explicit and implicit collective defence - it's really hard to imagine that a non-NATO, EU member getting attacked wouldn't lead to at least some other EU members militarily responding. This would have a high chance of dragging in NATO anyway. In the context of EU expansion in the 90s and 2000s, NATO expansion seemed like an obvious next step - it's not always the case that things happen because each side had a grand plan in mind. The one idea that is a bit dubious is that NATO promotes capitalism - there are international organisations that arguably do that (IMF, World Bank), and the US _does_ have an outsized influence in those organisations. But that's not really what NATO was for. I find it really hard to believe NATO would respond in any way to a member introducing very left wing policies, especially if they are still democracies.

[@la7dfa]

I agree. The U.S. has had too much power over the NATO agenda due to their dominance in military power. But the more countries that join, the better the balance will be. I am not so sure if NATO promotes capitalism, but it demands democracy and little corruption. I fully support NATO, but let us not be led into more conflicts in the Middle East just to please the U.S. and their sometimes hawkish behaviour. PS: Slava Ukraini

[@MoDa87]

@@merrymachiavelli2041 I always ask myself what these people want as an alternative to NATO. Some say they want a European pact without the USA but with Russia. But why include Russia? They are not a country I want to be allied with. They keep having lunatic leaders. Nothing against the Russian people, but they are very bad at choosing leadership. Some talk about a United europe from Portugal to Vladivostok. But never explain what that actually means, because we do not need more hard right voters in the eu. Poland and Hungary are bad enough. We could forget about any progress with the Russians in the mix.

[@bouabdellahredha6494]

@@merrymachiavelli2041 I partially agree with you but today's country and by today's laws countries do not really want to get dragged in by Wars and military operations as they say because anything could be escalated to All Out War nuclear war we have already seen it with Ukraine they don't want to get dragged in because things can get escalated I agree with you I mean the EU already have a stable ground and do not need the military background of the US

[@_Bran]

I think that even without NATO, it'd only be replaced by multiple defense treaties between the US and European countries.

[@Noschool100]

ya, people confuse NATO as the cause of western alignment and not just a reflection of it.

[@PulsingKrugotvoid]

Ya. People can talk all they want about America and stuff, when it comes down to it, no countries under America's umbrella is going to be willing to shed that umbrella anytime soon.

[@supersam5802]

@Zaydan Naufal my guess would be because they promote international trade as a way to maintain influence in the region which tends to come with strings attached, which leads to the furthering of neoliberal interests. which i know is kinda circular but as i understand neo-liberalism it is an offshoot of the vaguely progressive liberalism, which pushed for capitalist democracy through trade deals that made it expensive to trade with non capitalist democracy, and further orgs aiding neolibs make it cheaper is kind of their method of operation. as for what counts as left it depends on the context, to america every one of those listed were left leaning, but if your in eu i know the center is much less right wing.

[@sinoroman]

that scenario, most would be US-led too, just like NATO

[@ibrahimozgursucu3378]

I simply want the Anglo's to stop dominating the west and particularly Europe. I want Macron's way on this, an EU army and more autonomy. I just fear France because I know they are the same as the Anglo's and would love to manipulate nations and exploit people, I hope Germany will balance this. I believe the will of the European people could have befriended Russia, like Merkel tried, if it weren't for US policies...

[@michaellee1116]

Russia should consider how its behavior is reflected in the fact all of its neighbours have joined in an alliance against it. Nobody is joining in alliance to oppose Switzerland.

[@agentdan9574]

Yea because it's neutral

[@nothereandthereanywhere]

@@agentdan9574 Exactly. Russia is not. They will try to get an advantage, when they can. The same with US. The difference is that US is a free country in so many ways and you don't risk a little visit from an official, if you protest against the main fella. That has been the case for ever with Russia. So Russia is greatly mistrusted in this regards

[@hal6702]

It's exactly what I always say, "It's not about liking NATO, it's about defending from the evil that is Russia."

[@ferdinanddaratenas3447]

Exactly. That's what the marxists fail to understand (they are not called 'tankies' for nothing). NATO is a response to Russia's behaviour, not visceversa.

[@Omni_Shambles]

Lmao that you think your opinion matters and that ru would adjust based on your feedback. Clown xD

[@jaxerman5965]

Saying the Left is pro international treaties and the Right is less is one of those stereotypes we are dragging from the last century. Actually, just the general perception of Right and Left is a stupid simplification.

[@terrorgaming459]

When russia invades ukraine its catastrophe worst thing to ever happen when america invaded iraq Afghanistan yugoslavia vietnam grenada panama it was just a mistake😂😂😂😂

[@anonjo2630]

Yes but no. You are ignoring what he said. The proof he showed. "Left" vs "right" is very stupid, in the same way as talking about nations is stupid, talking about demographics is stupid, talking about diseases and disorders is stupid, and categorising human beings is innately stupid. Which ironically is a pretty fucking leftist take my dude. The "right" and the ideology that they have carried since the French revolution is easily categorised by being an opponent to public institutions and a proponent of private institutions. International cooperation is simply a public endeavour. So yeah it's a simplification, but we build on simplifications to find complexity. If you know how the scientific process works you would get that intuitively; generalisations allow for simplifications that help us make sense of the overly complex world. You just have to remain aware that these simplifications are complete and you'll be good.

[@jaxerman5965]

@@terrorgaming459 ​ @gamer 105 Yeah sure, because EVERY USA allied country didn't condemned it and inmediately went along with all of those wars. And obviously every one of those military interventions are exactly the same and we should put them in the same context. That was sarcasm by the way.

[@floydwhatchacallit6823]

@@terrorgaming459 cool whatabout bro, but do you have an actual point relevant to the failure of the narrow lert/right lense?

[@bowwak5366]

@@floydwhatchacallit6823 this is an actual russian bot

[@maynard789]

As a person living 300km from Ukrainian border in Poland, I can assure you that perspective matters. Without NATO we would have a liberating Russian world situation like in Ukraine, Georgia, Belarus, Chechnya, Syria and in recent years also the Sahel (there was of course more). What Russia touches, it rots. Fuck that, we need Nato in eastern Europe.

[@georgeamesfort3408]

Agreed 🇷🇴

[@ultracapitalistutopia3550]

Chechnya alone totally sums up what Ukraine could end up be if it be completely annexed by Russia: a dystopia ruled by an instagram influencer who demands everyone to devote absolutely religious loyalty or face harsh prosecution and public humiliation.

[@MoonatikYT]

Interesting to see the disconnect in the 'we need NATO' narrative vs the reality. Russia is bogged down in Ukraine, unable to do much more than defend territory they already occupied and make slow painful advances into a few select regions - and most NATO advocates even exaggerate the situation further, claiming not just that Russia is bogged down, but that Ukraine is going to achieve a complete victory. Yet apparently every other European country has to join NATO for protection, as the alternative is immediate annexation by Russia. If Russia can't conquer Ukraine, they certainly wouldn't be able to conquer even just a small coalition of its border states. So the justification falls apart even by their own assessment of Russian military capability. "The enemy is both too strong and too weak." Would you believe that just 5 or 6 years ago, the narrative went that the *entire EU* couldn't even resist Russia in a ground war? The belief was unironically that Russia could essentially invade and conquer all of Europe at any time, barring a massive intervention by the US or UK, and this was used to push for European increases in defense spending. Some have said for years that this was a completely preposterous notion and that Russia couldn't even take on the armed forces of Germany or France alone, let alone the entire EU. Turns out even that was an overestimation. The idea that Russian imperialism is capable of anything more than bullying its neighbours - which it isn't even particularly good at - has been completely destroyed. Yet somehow, they're still trying to push the alarmist notion of its immense power, while also paradoxically saying the opposite. I wonder why!

[@user-nv8xy5ll7d]

😂😂 Oh yeah, US definitely did a proper job in wherever it touched in history 🤣🤣😂 Afghanistan is so happy with the Taliban regime lmfao

[@apfelkrieger1]

I feel so often critisism of NATO isnt critisising of NATO. People take (justified) issue with the actions of some member country and expand it to be a problem caused by NATO. Often that means being against the US foreign policy and actions and then seeing NATO as nothing more than a US foreign policy tool. The fact that every country applied for membership and needed to have a democratic vote for it to happen is often lost. It is such a disgrace if people glance over the people actually effected and treat eastern european countries and its people with zero self determination. Way to often you hear people talk about „ending the war“ as in: lets just stop supporting Ukraine and force a settlement on them. Because if you are naive enough peace means peace, even when Ukraine would have to give up all its weapons and independence in the process, probably tempting a second invasion down the line. Russia isnt well known for sticking to promises of respecting borders as proven by the Budapest memorandum

[@maninredhelm]

The biggest mistake NATO made was trying to reinvent itself into a peacekeeping organization instead of a self-defense one. The operations that took place in Yugoslavia and Libya did not need to take place under the NATO banner and should not have, because NATO wasn't under attack. It was done that way entirely for the political "optics," to make it look like those decisions had unanimous international support in the West. The US still would have received a lot of support had they done that alone, so that was extremely wasteful of the goodwill towards NATO and the belief in its sincerity and integrity, and has provided the grain of truth for anti-NATO factions to latch on to at moments like this. NATO should have stuck to its damn mission. That doesn't mean you don't intervene when atrocities are being committed, you just don't do it under that banner.

[@anonjo2630]

yeah why do you think you used the words peacekeeping along with defence anyway. That is indeed political optics to just talk about imperialism

[@RillianGrant]

@@anonjo2630 Forcefully stopping another country from doing bad things? We're going to need another word then

[@thepcfd]

when natives defend themself it always depend, if they are succesfull they are barbarian which need to be teach leson. if they dying its civilizating them

[@thepagecollective]

NATO from the beginning was designed with TWO objectives. The first was defense against Russia or ANY power that attacked the West. That means NATO defense powers were invoked for 9/11, even though Russia had nothing to do with it. The SECOND purpose was peacekeeping. This comes from how the alliance was created out of the lessons of WWI. In the First World War, alliances between great powers, principally Germany vs. France/Britain triggered utter calamity. After WWI, the US pretty much ignored Europe, and the same powers went to war with each other again. So, as a result, the SECOND idea of NATO was that by bringing the UK, France and Germany into a single alliance, these powers would never go to war again. In that sense keeping the peace where war might incur on European or US interests was always a part of NATO. A ounce of prevention was better than a pound of cure. It has actually been quite remarkable that full force has not been invoked for Ukraine, since Ukraine security has direct impact on European security. One thing for certain: If Russia decides to get aggressive on Lithuania, NATO will act. Putin very much knows this.

[@Dav1d15196]

There is not mistake to do something before someone actually attacks you. So I don't agree with your opinion.

[@AtomicBLB]

The very fact that Russia frequently antagonizes non-NATO members and does absolutely nothing in regards to NATO members means it's working. NATO is not a country, it doesn't have borders to defend and it doesn't violate sovereign states borders or governments. The argument against has never made sense to me.

[@Tjalve70]

Let's look at the former Warsaw pact members. The ones who have NOT joined NATO are: Belarus, which is basically a Russian puppet state at this point. Moldova, which has an ongoing conflict with Russia in Transnistria. Ukraine, which used to be pro-Russian, and the moment they wanted to turn western, Russia invaded and created a conflict. Georgia, which has an ongoing conflict with Russia. Armenia, which is friendly towards Russia, and has historic animosity towards Turkey, which is a NATO member. And Azerbaijan, which is friendly to Turkey. So with the exception of Azerbaijan, it seems like every single country that isn't friendly to Russia, or has an ongoing conflict with Russia, has joined NATO. So yeah, NATO does seem to be working.

[@raulmelo5881]

It violates ur sovereignty because u can’t say no to America u become part of its sphere and if They say go fight this war in the Middle East u do it and send troops to die for Uncle Sam. Not to mention giving up territory for nato bases and that’s quite literally giving up sovereignty when u have another country set up bases in ur country.. u are now a protectorate of the united states of America.. and if America decided ur country isn’t worth it they could literally leave u hanging during a Russian invasion anyways what would anyone do ? Y’all seem to forget that lol I really doubt we would start ww3 over Estonia or latvia.. it was an anti ussr alliance it should of been ended 30 plus years ago

[@Tjalve70]

@@raulmelo5881 That is complete bullshit. None of the NATO countries are slaves to USA. We are not in any way required to do what they say. However, after 9/11, when Bush declared this as an act of war, that meant Article 5 could be activated, and then all of th4e NATO members were required to react to that. But that would be the same no matter which country had been attacked. If Sinn Fein had governed in Ireland, and IRA had bombed UK, and UK had decided that this was an act of war from Ireland, they could have reacted in the same was as USA did. And NATO members would have been required to react.

[@viktormilosevic8172]

Oh it definitely violates sovereign states and governments

[@terrorgaming459]

@@Tjalve70 ok so lets talk about when charles de gaulle tried leaving nato in the 60s america threatened invasion sactioned them until they were forced to rejoin nato

[@michaelkidd7123]

Both can be true. It can be a security alliance for the protection of all its members AND a tool/means of western of influence and protection.

[@mango4ttwo635]

And in some parts of the world it is one, in other parts, the other. That is why the differing views in different countries on NATO. E Europe sees it as benevolent remembering the post WW2/Cold War situation, while many other parts of the world suffered at its hands (eg Middle East, Lat America)

[@wandameadows5736]

Its the RIGHT that should hate NATO simply due to the Constitution. Its the RIGHT that should hate NATO simply due to the Constitution. NATO is an Unconstitutional entity so ANY person that claims they support America being involved in NATO does not support the US Constitution because it is impossible to favor both when they contradict each other. Its amazing that anyone on the RIGHT would support NATO, an Unelected group of official's that decide who America & its Citizens are obligated to defend & WHO they are obligated to call enemy's. NATO's powers is worse than the things you see most wacko leftist pushing today. In fact I wonder how many people realize that EVERY WAR that America has been involved in or declared since WW2 has been Unconstitutional? I actually have more respect for Leftist that tell you they don't care what the Constitution says than the fraudulent "Constitutional Conservatives" that lie & trick people into to promoting the violation of the Constitution while telling you you'd really be defending it by supporting NATO. Unfortunately these frauds only have to trick people with the Left vs Right propaganda & people react like robots.

[@tcritt]

@@wandameadows5736 There's a whole world out there beyond your borders. We don't care about your constitution.

[@ch0293]

It can't serve two masters, there's big and different interest between America and Europe in the geopolitical and economic gain, the only one losing it now is Europe without energy. US is enjoying the high dollar

[@edumatters4all]

Yugoslavia,Afghanistan, libya were bombed nato is defending who thats aggression

[@oxcaxx]

Anyone that thinks NATO doesnt protect anyone should talk to Baltic people and Eastern Europeans

[@muratqitaku56]

As an Eastern European you couldn't be more right

[@bouabdellahredha6494]

NATO protects you and NATO invade us essentially in North Africa you are security for an hour countries it sounds about European As it gets

[@user-op8fg3ny3j]

Like anything, it does some good like fighting against ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia and making some situations worse like in Libya

[@bouabdellahredha6494]

Nato in the US simply give you the power to destroy and wreck havoc in other people's countries and you are not good to enforce any peace you went to Iraq saying to make peace you said NATO approves this we are okay with NATO you dropped killed millions of Iraqis kidnap them and put them in Cuba in prison tortured them you think you are safe because of us and the NATO

[@bouabdellahredha6494]

@@user-op8fg3ny3j some situation worse it's like every situation worse

[@maxthecharacter1296]

Eastern European countries have an obvious reason to join NATO, even before Russia went and invaded Ukraine. The Soviet Union may have collapsed, but the people who helped run it were/are still around. Only difference is that they changed the flag color, allowed some sketchy elections, and allowed capitalism within its borders, along with some sense of freedom of speech (which has gradually been eroded). The Eastern European countries knew they couldn't trust Russia, not after how much it has heavily influenced and used them, to the point of threatening their culture to make them more 'Russian'. Are you going to trust the neighbor who doesn't even admit or apologize for the famine they deliberately caused? Or are you going to jump to the nearest defence so such a thing never happens again? Ukraine chose the latter and Russia showed them just why NATO exists.

[@Gizziiusa]

well said.

[@Omni_Shambles]

Aww diddums, are you upset that things are not going the way you want them to? Maybe you should snuggle up under your wee NATO blanket. Pathetic. xD

[@DennisTheInternationalMenace]

👏👏👏👏👏👏👏 The only reason Russia is attacking Ukranie is bc of its natural gas resources. They were to become the 2nd largest producer in the area. The main spots were in their economic zone in the black sea and you guessed it... The Donbas area. They already stole Crimea and 2/3rd of their economic zone, Now Putin is hell set on Donbas. Only thing Putin is "liberating" is Ukranies resources.

[@nromk]

The USA caused many of issues in Central America such the total destruction of farm land by imposing monoculture, it caused violence by suppressing any left wing and liberal politicians and movements and it caused instability by deporting sometimes even US born citizens of Central American decent because they were gangsters and to sum it up it dominates the region. So why can't say El Salvador have a military alliance with Russia, why can't Russia establish its own NATO in the Americas? The USA kicked out the British, Spanish, and French out of Americas one of the reasons for the USA to fight against Germany in WWII was to counter the possibility of German and Japanese influence in the Americas the USA invaded Cuba over its allience with Russia and is trying to contain China to Asia. So your freedom of countries seems very limited to Europe.

[@Gizziiusa]

@@nromk You act like its something new to humanity. Human civilizations have been doing it since the beginning. Be it an empire, etc. Here's a newsflash for ya: The USA currently is the ONLY SUPERPOWER in existence. Get it ?! Advantages of being a superpower is force and power projection, especially in neighboring countries and continents. I guess, El Salavador could attempt an alliance with Russia, or Russia attempting to make a NATO like bloc in Central and/or South America...but it will have to contend with ole Superpower USA. If any country doesnt like it... boo hoo hoo. go to war with the USA about it then.

[@serenaso4669]

"Don't make clear your country wants to protect its own sovereignity and identity, or else the imperialist bully will get angry and attack you" is an anti-NATO argument i still have no idea how to justify...

[@Tjalve70]

Never mind "justify", I have no idea how to interpret it. What is it even supposed to mean?

[@megabyte01]

It sounds to me like a bully is looking to bully someone and doesn't want them running to other kids for help. In this scenario, the United Nations is also an aunt or uncle by marriage to the bully, making it awkward to discipline them.

[@ludaknormalan9866]

@@megabyte01 ahh yes the"disaster family"

[@zorosenpai2517]

who is the bully? russia and europe has fought war over centuries there is a huge level of mistrust between them , earlier when ussr used to exist their used to be some countries between moscow and europe but now moscow is wide open and if ukraine joins nato the nato / europe is very close to moscow which russia cant afford thats why this war happened

[@megabyte01]

@@zorosenpai2517 so... Russia attacks a region, Ukraine, that voted twice to leave Russia, not because it hopes to capture their natural resources, but because they fear a distant neighboring country is going to invade them via Ukraine? They think it makes more sense to subjugate and kill hundreds of thousands of people because of a perceived threat? To me, that doesn't sound logical. Then again, I am not a jingoist.

[@yankees88888g]

It's not about being in favor of international organizations it's about what they stand for

[@mememagician97]

Yeah, and that's why Libya has an open-air slave market now.

[@ch0293]

They stand for conflict

[@totalstrangerthing7419]

NATO is our version of Empire from Star Wars

[@ems4884]

NATO stands for the only thing keeping Russia from asserting it's influence throughout the continent by using it's overwhelming nuclear arsenal. There's an astonishing amount of naivety in certain political circles. I'm a social democrat but as much as i hate war and military spending, I'm not so stupid that i would argue against basic self defense.

[@aangionas9676]

​@@totalstrangerthing7419 Agree ! UN should stop any organitation with pro-invasion like nato

[@viktorvh5511]

"The Left" doesn't seem to understand that Russia would have attacked Uraine regardless of situation. Baltic countries would have been gobbled up if it wasn't for NATO. All countries of the former Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact are VERY weary of Russian aggression and just don't want to live in another Russian Empire. Even of you call US evil, there's no comparison between it and Russia. US promotes global trade, Russia promotes 1984

[@TruWill99]

Seems like you need to learn some history. US interventions, coups and invasions in South America alone makes my blood boil. The US and Russia are both imperialist, and both a negative to our world but US imperialism is far worse that you can't even compare the two. The US definitely doesn't promote global trade, they promote privatisation in third world countries so American companies can buy them for dirt cheap. They then exploit the workers and extract as much resources as they can. That's how the US operates, profit above all else.

[@michaelpocci1876]

“The Left” is a sketchy term, because people may consider social democrats as “the left” and the world’s largest social democratic parties are currently pro-NATO

[@ConsumerOfCringe]

People love bringing up past US actions but fail to consider that Democratic countries can vote out goverments; The American goverment that commited crimes in Vietnam is not in power anymore, The Russian goverment that commited crimes in Georgia, Ukraine, Chechnia etc cant be voted out Russian people couldnt choose their leader under the Soviet Union, and has had the same party in control since independance The US isnt evil, but its Senators and Presidents might be, they are elected and are not the same as the country Russia isnt evil, but has been under one party since its creation, so its goverment actions cant be seperated from the country

[@TruWill99]

@@ConsumerOfCringe Democracy in America is a joke 😂. From the outside it looks exactly the same since the Vietnam war, absolutely no change. A two party state that only benefits corporations and both pro-war. A country that constantly gets into conflicts against the will of the people. How is that democracy? Just look at the makeup of the government, full of rich, white, male landlords. I thought democracy was supposed to represent the people, where are the working class politicians? How can you have democracy when the politicians interest are in direct opposite from the people? You say the US isn't evil? You just have to look at history to know that statement is an absolute joke. Genocide after genocide, invasion after invasion, slavery and oppression of all minorities, assassinations and coups of democratically elected governments. Nothing has changed.

[@ConsumerOfCringe]

@@TruWill99 I agree that America has flaws in democracy (gerymandering), but it is worth noting that the Vietnam and Iraq conflicts were initially popular, anf became very unpopular a few years in. I agree that the two party system is flawed (even though each party has undergone change since their leaders are elected in primaries), but that is an issue caused by the electoral college and could be solved through adopting a Germany style "proportional representation" system. I agree that American senators are often out of touch and represent the elite rather than worker's interests, but that is an issue caused by individual senators who could be voted out if enough people woke up to the issue and voted against them. I agree that senators are often too enthusiastic to use war for popularity, but this is an issue that can be solved by media, protestors and individuals spreading awareness on the issues of war I'm not American but I recognize other flaws in the countries I'm from, and believe ignoring local problems for blind nationalism is harmful. However, NATO is not the root cause for any of this. The problems above would still exist without NATO, NATO did not invent imperialism, nor does it make it easier since its members individually choose to join in a conflict or not. All getting rid of NATO will do is remove article 5 (attack on one = attack on all), putting vulnerable countries at risk of becoming the next Ukraine or Georgia. It is critical we divert out attention our local issues and their causes, instead of letting ourselves be distracted by NATO fearmongering, or pretending countries like America are ideological monoliths that can't change. Vote for change, democracy might not be perfect in its current state, but it can still facilitate great change if enough people vote. The two parties can be steered towards any direction if their individual senators are voted out.

[@georgemorley1029]

Argument: “NATO isn’t protecting anyone.” Baltic states: “Run that one past me again?”

[@raulmelo5881]

lol nato protects American hegemony.. ask serbia lybia Afghanistan & all the victims of operation gladio if they feel protected

[@E4439Qv5]

Iceland, with zero standing military: 😶

[@idontexist1681]

Maybe nato is protecting nations that can't protect itself, but it also turns nations that can protect themselves into american satellite states. Turkey and greece had american-backed military junta regimes, and italy suffered a lot from nato-backed terrorists.

[@darksector1389]

@@raulmelo5881 oh yes I'm glad Serbia is not feeling safe after their two genocides of Kosovans and Bosnians. That's the only intervention I agree that NATO was right. Libya was also through UN which both Russia and China agreed in the security council, even though it was a bad decision. Afghanistan, USA was actually attacked and it responded. The only invasion that was basically a war crime fully was Iraq, and we Americans hate Bush for doing that. But since you just have the "America=Bad" ideology these facts don't mean anything to you right?

[@eleni73]

@@raulmelo5881 Exactly. The nature of NATO is one unbiased look at Yugoslavia away.

[@dejsihorcici6886]

I am from Czechia, a country that was in history invaded by the Russia/USSR in 1968 and by Germany in 1938. Thank God we are a NATO and EU member now, which provides us peace and prosperity. Far left is from my perspective naive and idealistic, even having sympathy towards Russia, becauce of their love to communism. Believe me, you don't want to live under communist regime. Living in the US or in the Western Europe, you cannot imagine how cruel and oppressive that regime was. Czechs are usualy anti-Russian, because we don't want to experience it again. Russia may feel unsecure because of the NATO, but it is only their fault the rest of Eastern Europe hates them and joins NATO, since they oppressed Eastern European countries very badly.

[@gogudelagaze1585]

Those who have not lived under the communists will not understand. To them it is propaganda, and we are clearly CIA agents or whatever.. They'll keep trying to reinstate the past and then repeat the mistakes of the past.

[@terrorgaming459]

You had it easy Czechslovakia was the richest country in the Eastern bloc cry russia developed you and you betrayed russia if you expect sympathy you came to the wrong place

[@cass4912]

Most people who are leftists usually are not sympathetic to Russia just because they're anti- american and also dislike the USSR. Ppl who do support Russia or the USSR are called 'tankies' and are considered fascists cosplaying as leftists. The USSR was terrible and most leftists are not naïve facists

[@Admiral_Grufus]

@@terrorgaming459 since the czechs were the richest on the eastern bloc, and they're anti-russian, wouldn't that add more validity to OP's argument? Wouldn't you want to live under a system where you benefit?

[@sealand9049]

Dont respond to this guy He is a troll He commented under almost every comment basically saying nato, america=bad without any proof or even try of validation of his bs claims

[@wabalaladabdab]

(Leftist here)... I think the problem is that many so called leftists didn't realize that the Soviet union wasn't that nice leftist country that they thought it was. And this kind baseless pro-russia sentiment kind of dragged on after the '90, when the already pretty bad USSR turned into a full fledged far-right, etno-nationalist, orthodox ultra-conservative, expansionist, crony-capitalist mafia-state with some tzarist/stalinist nostalgia. For the far-left, it should be a pretty solid clue if the neo-nazi/neo-fascist far right on the west is tge biggest Russia/Putin supporter/apologist, then maybe they shouldn't be in one company with them. In Budapest, there was a pro-putin protest supporting the Russian war, with around 300 pathetic participants. Most of them neo-nazis and fascists with their symbols, but there were some pro-Orban stalinists, self-proclaimed communists (which is funny on its own), with old-school Soviet aesthetics, which created a very surreal scene with Soviet flag and nazi flag standing side by side, one calls the Ukrainians "fascists" the other "jews/liberal-communists"... I'm an economically leftist and socially liberal, but if this is what it boils down to, then f*ck the hammer and sickle and all the soviet aesthetics, and let's go NATO.

[@bothi00]

I think genuine leftists, particularly Marxist-Leninists, are under no illusion of the flaws of the soviet Union. No leader and no society is perfect. It's just their position is that the US and the west was even more flawed and oppressive at the time. And at least during Stalin's reign, they have a point. The US was still an explicitly apartheid state, the gov allowed the KKK to terrorise and murder black people, women had farrrr less rights and freedom than on the USSR, and even in countries like Ireland at the time, and for 6 decades after, women were literally locked up and had their children ripped from them if they were born of wedlock. The masses of sexual abuses perpetuated and covered up by western governments and the hands of churches, the mass graves of orphaned children found everywhere. These are scathing indictments on the supposed freedom of those nations

[@Beachgirl1]

What? The Soviet Union was a totalitarian, Communist regime with no regard for human rights. It was as leftist as one could be. Leftists are brutal, murderous, intolerant totalitarians with no regard for human rights.

[@Jay_in_Japan]

That does sound surreal, lol

[@siyacer]

Fascists: "I'd never thought I'd be fighting side by side with a communist." Communists: "How about fighting side by side with a friend?" Fascists: "Aye, I can do that." NATO-supplied A-10 Warthog: BRRRRRRT

[@lexter8379]

The solution is anarchonatioism! The true far-left ideology!

[@vianabdullah2837]

I can attest to being a tankie once in my life. It essentially starts with learning about how Western governments in the Cold War meddled in the affairs of third world countries whenever they were starting to seem too friendly towards communism. It would spiral into a rabbit hole of thinking that every problem in the world was caused by America and its allies. That's how some leftists rationalise thinking that Putin's Russia is anti-imperialists when they're literally the imperialist in this scenario. Just because they see the flaws of Western governments over the years, their perspective goes to the other camp in thinking that the enemies of the West are just in their actions. How they become sympathetic towards Putin, Assad, Maduro, etc. You see some prominent left-wing politicians endorse these views, most notably Corbyn in the UK and Melenchon in France. Also, the leftists who are in this camp will usually cite Noam Chomsky as one of their political inspirations.

[@chukuzosike7615]

Corbyn does not support any of those leaders you mentioned. While Blair and Bush were inviting Putin into their homes, Corbyn was speaking out about the bombings Putin was carrying out in Grozny.

[@peterfireflylund]

Once you learn how horrifically bad Communism is, you start to cheer the US on every time it prevents someone from being “too friendly towards Communism”.

[@couchpotatoe91]

Interesting, thanks for sharing! I feel like a lot of this has to do with a certain naivity of firmly believing that *somebody* has to be the "good guys". So if it's not your side, it has to be the other side. Naive, but also idealistic in a way: They simply can't believe that there isn't a government out there that is completely innocent and has the well-being of its citizens as it's sole goal while at the same time upholding all possible moral standards. It doesn't surprise that many tankies are on the younger side or have lived a very sheltered life.

[@Harsh-mg2em]

I was sort of a tankie once as well. I had no job and was generally at a low point in my life, and a lot of the basic stuff they say is true like what you mentioned, but other stuff, like I mentioned voting tactically to some of them once and they have just completly lost it. One thing you will often hear from these people is "Eh, just say you're a liberal, not a real leftist." to keep you in line. I honestly feel like I was part of a cult but got out of it because I couldn't support not voting against Trump as one thing.

[@emmaxop3613]

My perspective, as a leftist, is that both Russia and the United States are imperialist and aggressive powers that seek to dominate the world. Why should we sign on to support one of them in their unjust and bloody wars just because we're opposed to the other? That argument goes both ways, no matter if the one you support is Russia or the United States. It's too much of a strawman argument, in my opinion, to say that people who are opposed to NATO are pro-Russia, though I do realize that might not have been your intention.

[@darksector1389]

From an American perspective, some Americans who might look anti-NATO on the right just want Euopean nations to spend their 2% of GDP for military defense as it was agreed upon joining NATO and it annoys Republicans that we spend more money and resources for that region than Euopeans themselves. It's a valid concern and I'm glad more Europeans have doubled their military spending after the invasion. Americans want a safe and secure Indo-Pacific region to counter China's expansion by putting more resources into QUAD nations since China is a much bigger and stronger player in comparison to Russia against the USA. Americans basically hope for a strong and independent Europe to counter Russia's expansion meanwhile USA can focus on the big guy China's expansion in pacific.

[@megasin1]

The main issue with this, is that many European countries have become as successful as they are by not spending their money on military, I actually think the US spends far too much GDP on military. A lot of these EU countries have become top tier by investing in education, healtcare, infrastructure like trains, roads, docks, government & logistics, they have well paid public workers, and generally use the money that could have been spent on boats and missiles instead spent on welfare. It makes more sense to increase spending now, when there is an actual big issue, but once this is over, it makes sense to transfer down to about 1.5% gdp.

[@tylermc11795]

@@megasin1 naa this is far from over, Russia will still be a threat after this war. 2 percent should be the minimum standard like the agreement said

[@misgarcruz3779]

​@@megasin1 no it does not make sense you do not prepare for the next threat when is already there, you prepare before hand, sure maybe not at the level that the US does but that is because is forced to do so to compensate for their allies who does not pay their share. The 2% should be the porcentage we pay in times of peace so that when it comes to real threat we have a significant army but also have enough space to expanded. Paying less than 2% make an army unprepared, just look at germany, it does have a modern army but it size is limited.

[@sinoroman]

european countries wasting quite a lot of money doubling their expenditure into NATO. plus, QUAD isn't an alliance

[@JewTube001]

@@tylermc11795 i think the argument is that ultimately these other investments make europe a more competitive society compared to russia. these days military prowess relies a lot on the rest of societal development. on the other hand, a modern military also requires a lot of preparation - we can see this in how long it takes to build a warship compared to how long it took 50 years ago. so you don't want depend too much on a 'minuteman' strategy when it comes to modern defense. so is 1.5% too little or too much? ultimately it depends. ultimately i would argue this is enough considering the total real number of investment dollars european nations can pool when compared to their main rival, russia. unless their enemies becomes richer or more numerous then i dont see much point in paying more.

[@santiagoalcantara3806]

5:50 I think that argument refers to military interventions like Yugoslavia one, more than member ship.

[@Mr.Nichan]

I think a common idea is that they would be fine with NATO if it was ACTUALLY a purely defensive alliance, but that it isn't, as is proven by things the NATO invasion of Iraq being nonsensically justified by Article 5. There's also hostility towards the fact that NATO hasn't agree to never use nukes first (It is a "first strike nuclear alliance"). The idea that people in Eastern Europe democratically chose to join NATO can be dismissed in the usual way. As much as much leftists claim to support "democracy", they, like many other political groups, often have little regard for people's actual opinions, since they see most people as brainwashed by propaganda and distorted education they've been surrounded with since birth, and think that people's informational environment needs to be changed by counter-propaganda in order for people to realize how they are oppressed and more generally the actual way the world is organized, so that democracy (and news) can represent people's ACTUAL interests. (You can compare this to things people who are against the North Korean government say about North Koreans.) That's just my perception from what I've heard from the far left.

[@drmodestoesq]

@@Mr.Nichan Ditto. Tankies think they have a monopoly on the truth.

[@arrow1414]

The NATO intervention into the Lybian Civil War was authorized by the UN actually, so it was legal. You all didn't mention that many on the Left, mostly Far Left also hated NATO for intervening In the Yugoslavian Civil Wars during the 1990s not believing that the intervention was not to stop the Genocide by the Serbs against Bosnian Muslims, but to somehow kill off any remaining pro Soviet regimes in the East. Some like Noam Chomsky (wrongly) don't believe the Serbian military were committing genocide at all.

[@villekuronen6242]

lets be honest usa has some weird hate boner for communism (im not saying communism is good)

[@geewee1geewee197]

1.there was no such thing as yugoslavian civil wars. it was serbian aggression on slovenia, croatia, bosnia and herzegovina and kosovo. 2. nato intervened in 1999 when it was clear that kosovo is shaping into a another srebrenica and vukovar. 3. if nato intervened earlier, say in 1991, tens of thousands of lives would have been saved.

[@utilitymonster8267]

Which wasn’t a very weird thought, and probably even true whereas the US has done essentially nothing else than overthrowing democracies because they were too socialist for the past decades.

[@erozionzeall6371]

What happened to Nato being a defensive alliance?

[@nutyyyy]

Leftists just despise anything western.

[@smartlucker4011]

I could only imagine if there was no nato what Eastern Europe and the Balkans would be like today

[@esajpsasipes2822]

the timeline in czechia: the velvet revolution => invaded three years after by russia (if there would even be any revolution)

[@user-op8fg3ny3j]

Lot more ethnic cleansing

[@erozionzeall6371]

The world would be much better.

[@theunholycrusader517]

@@erozionzeall6371 if you think that Russia invading the Balkans is a better world then yes

[@panoskatrin4910]

What are the balkans and eastern europe today?corrupt capitalists democracies that benefit germany france and the us?what would change ?that they be corrupt capitalists democracies that benefit russia?to the avarge eastern european like myself it makes no real diffrence and i am not going to choose between the lesser evil capitalist imperialist power i am gonna activly work against both

[@haruhisuzumiya6650]

Tankies are easily offended by the NATO hedgemony

[@weiserwolf580]

Tankies are nothing but rebels against the societies in which they live, they have certainly never lived in any Soviet republic. I am disgusted when I see the western kids wanting communism, they don't even understand what it is

[@kawa-imilliye7317]

Nah we are generally just offended by the exploitation of resources, ousting of democratically elected leftist leaders, western backed fascist militias and outright massacres and famines caused by NATO in the third world. And you should be too if you still have at least a little bit of critical thinking capacity left after all that propaganda.

[@emmaxop3613]

Simply concluding, based on this video, that anyone opposed to NATO is a tankie is too narrow-minded and simply not true.

[@argosgiovanni5988]

i swear to god letting the lib appropiate the word tankie is one of the greatest mistake of the left

[@Alex-bc1hx]

NATO hegemony = u s imperialism on Europe

[@The84336]

Simple enough. Those people oppose NATO because, for them, US is always bad and Russia is always good. During the Cold War, they called people like that tankies, because they desperately strained for some barely comprehensible reason to excuse the Soviet invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia; they are now doing the exact same thing in re Ukraine. Speaking as someone who considers themselves a leftist/progressive (not that I particularly feel a need to label myself). And I should clarify that the vast majority of left of center people do not feel this way, but as usual it's the crazy fringes that are the loudest. It's also not just the far left who are anti-NATO and pro-Putin; lots of people on the far right support Putin because his fascistic vision for the world is one they are partial to. I find both equally repulsive.

[@PhiltheMoko]

Thanks posting this so I didn't have to type it all up, my views in a nutshell.

[@berkaysulek7058]

No it's not apperantly because you got it all wrong

[@rhyleigh_hades]

I am a leftist and/or Socialist,and your reply is my opinion in a nutshell, and i really hate Russia and China, i dont know why some of my I would say "comrades" are " Tankies" and really in to defend the two evils, NATO is good in Defending the Eastern Eu i would say but their atrocities in Middle East are not good and shall condemned, but in Libya its UN mandated tho so i think its "still NATO" to my Comrades(NATO is better than nothing guys) and Soviet Union in my opinion did not even possessed what Karl Marx is envisioning, SU is just a Totalitarian state

[@theonlylauri]

More than a few right-wingers have jumped on the "US/West bad" train after the recent domestic developments. Now, I'm not a fan of woke capitalism, but I do recognize it's not the first stupid and morally bankrupt fad in the history of Western civilization. It may be amongst the most surreal, but it's not the worst or the most destructive. To throw a temper tantrum when things don't go your way speaks of ultimately rather shallow loyalties. To buy into Putinist propaganda of Russia being a healthy, strong Christian traditionalist country, when in fact that's about as authentic as Lockheed-Martin's Pride socks, shows gullibility. So yeah. Anti-patriotic right-wingers making googly eyes at foreign dictators. Leftists shilling for an imperialist war by a country with lots of fascist characteristics. Not a club I'd like to be part of. And of course for Finland things are simple. If Russians had won, soon enough they would have sitten down next to us, put an arm around our shoulders, and said something in the spirit of: "We're best buddies, right? In fact we're such good friends there's no need for you to join NATO. Or continue with those shared exercises. Let's sign a non-aggression pact so you won't be dragged in if NATO forces us to intervene in Baltics. Here, some cheap gas for our best friends. You really should do what Germany did and use a lot more of it. Just a little friendly advice, you know. *wink* Hey, Sweden..."

[@andresmartinezramos7513]

@@theonlylauri "about as authentic as Lockheed-Martin's Pride socks" LMAO

[@devinmes1868]

NATO isn't perfect, anyone can see its glaring flaws and issues if you choose not to look at it from a heavily biased pov. But it's certainly needed in these times.

[@kosmonarrat]

just no. America isn't responsible for Europe. just dumb

[@neodym5809]

Nothing made by humans is perfect. But Nato brings more good than harm to the world.

[@kosmonarrat]

@@neodym5809 good for who? White people in the EU.

[@MoonatikYT]

Let me get this straight, most of Europe and the US - the world's richest & most colonial countries - all need to be in a military alliance to 'defend themselves' from one (ONE) country with a GDP per capita of a whopping $10,000 that failed to invade its much smaller neighbour? When put it in terms like that the "we need NATO!" narrative sounds incredibly dumb and it makes it clear what NATO is actually for: invading Afghanistan, bombing Libya, and ensuring Western global hegemony in order to enslave the entire world and destroy NATO member states through imposing neoliberal politics, as the west both did to Ukraine and as they will do more after this. Ironically, literally during the invasion, the Ukrainian government forced Bill 5371 through the Rada which effectively abolished labour laws. Eastern Europeans are to be exploited by the rich countries, and the Ukrainian government and ruling class is happy to oblige. Workers can now be fired at will for any reason, and collective bargaining has been abolished. It's already happening. I'm sure the average clueless NATOist liberal would back that though. Being in the Western bloc and NATO means sacrificing your people's labour to exploitation by Western corporations and literally their bodies in Western wars for third world resources, all for the promise of 'protection' from a paper tiger. Some anti-imperialism!

[@neodym5809]

@@kosmonarrat good for its members.

[@kmay4963]

Interesting video but I'd say you missed another very important fact. That democracy is growing eastwards. Authoritarian and autocratic regimes are worried of this coming of age and worried that they will lose their power. Biggest threat to Russia is not west's weapons or capitalism but democracy itself.

[@Qnexus7]

Exactly. For example a democratic and somewhat prosperous ukraine ends up being a role model for russia as they share the same linguistic space through media, entertainment, etc. The true danger for "russia" is letting people see and believe they can pretend more from gov.

[@specialsomeones]

You have to be joking

[@skysamurai4649]

Very good point. As an ex-Russian I can say that Putin is always loosing his popularity and because the Russian government system has long rotten away, he can’t do this by normal means, like improving the economy, attracting foreign investment and finally breaking out from the “medium wages trap” (don’t know how it will be in english, in russian it’s «ловушка средних доходов»). So he wanted to boost his popularity with a small victorious war. Putin fears democracy because he knows that it’s a “death sentence” for him.

[@avigailpekelman8239]

Liberal democracy is an imperfect form of democracy as it tends to serve the rich over the poor

[@Qnexus7]

​@@avigailpekelman8239 that's inevitable, in fact it was for things like christianity which paved the way towards some kind of value, interest and care for the poor, the bottom of societies. as for the rich and powerful continually accumulating more of it, that's an eternal thing, inevitable as physics is. "Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must" the values that brought someone to teach the pythagorean theorem to a slave, mainstreamed and institutionalized through religion, lead to nowadays democracies.

[@DERIKTHEGENERAL]

you can be against NATO war crimes and Russian war crimes. countries should be free to be secure, but that includes the ones NATO bombs too

[@louisecorchevolle9241]

I am French, we have atomic bombs as defense in number enough with nuclear submarines as Charles de Gaulle thought we don't want American protection but our own Nato is not realy defensive it has attacked former Yougoslavia without security council mandate; Nato lead by US it is only them they decide how to respond to a nuclear attack if it is Joue Biden he might press to its pants button Nato is a machine to sell US weapons and destroys for example French military complex often with Britain as it took unfairly a contract of 50 billion $ of French submarine Nato has no answer to Russian hypersonic weapons so cannot fully protect its allies Why are Ireland, Austria not in Nato ? Sweden , Finland might to have infamous Bazar Erdogan negotiations before being admitted in Nato Last point it is said that Nato is an alliance of democratic countries look at Nato's second Army the Turkish; a joke Edrdodans Turkey is not at all democratic

[@panzerviiimaus1581]

You have probably the only sane take in this comment section to be honest. Both the pro Nato and anti Nato camps are toxic.

[@eduardog3000]

Only one of those is an international pact that can and should be broken up though.

[@hudhinton1880]

Although you won't see NATO countries causing this level of wanton civilian destruction.

[@hudhinton1880]

@@panzerviiimaus1581 One can be pro-NATO without being rabid about it. Clearly it's been an effective alliance to counter Russia. It's value has never been greater than it is today. Unlike Russia, every single NATO country supports the right of self-determination.

[@ssir5927]

NATO is not a "defensive alliance". It is an instrument of the American Empire. It's first official engagement was in 1995 when Bill Clinton used NATO forces instead of using only US forces in Bosnia, and he did this for purely domestic political reasons. While this engagement was "righteous" in many ways, and in my opinion necessary, using NATO was a mistake. The situation in Bosnia was not impacting the safety of any NATO country and was in no way defensive. Same thing again in 1999 when NATO forces were used to support Kosovo Albanians against Serbia. Once again the safety of NATO countries was not at stake, and it was an explicitly aggressive operation. Same thing in Libya in 2011, not defensive in any sort of way, and it caused the destruction of Libya that continues today. In 2001, NATO engaged in the "defensive" invasion and occupation of Afghanistan in response to the 9/11 attacks. No matter that no Afghan's were involved in 9/11 or that Afghanistan in no way posed any threat to the safety of NATO countries, it stands as it's sole "defensive" operation.

[@antyspi4466]

We must remembe that the bombing campaign against Serbia in the Kosovo Conflict was not UN mandated and a flagrant breach of international law, undertaken to interfere into the the domestic issues of another state and in the end, discredit the ruling government. This was so to NATO`s original sin, as with this campaign NATO demonstrated its willingness to conduct interventions purely based on the interests of certain members. Afghanistan was a different thing though, as the US claimed that the Afghan government was harbouring the leadership and important infrastructure of Al Qaeda.

[@williamsherman1942]

@Nicholas Time It isn’t that simple, mate

[@vincentknight27]

Winston Churchill (obviously not exactly a leftist lol) famously said "democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others". I think the same is true about NATO as a security alliance.

[@avigailpekelman8239]

Democracy can be improved

[@TruWill99]

Well obviously he would say that if he thinks working class people are stupid.

[@whitezombie10]

@@avigailpekelman8239 yes

[@tacosmexicanstyle7846]

Too bad Churchill never said that

[@somethinglikethat2176]

@@TruWill99 so why would he call a system which gives them a large say in government the least worst option?

[@pp2793]

I feel like in some European countries, including Italy, the populist right is the great anti-NATO driver as they see it, together with the EU, as taking sovereignty away from the country and they see Putin as an example for defending the sovereignty of the country.

[@nutyyyy]

The far left and right are both anti-NATO

[@pp2793]

@@nutyyyy it might be true, however here there is no meaningful anti-NATO sentiment coming from the far left, probably because we don't have a meaningful far left anymore.

[@theotherohlourdespadua1131]

By acting like the US in its own NATO expy?

[@Micha-qv5uf]

Good to know. It doesn't make any sense though. But when did right wing aruments ever make sense...

[@svenkarlsen2702]

@@Micha-qv5uf when you listen to arguments instead getting political, I'd say about 50% of the time.

[@mix3k818]

Some have Warsaw Pact nostalgia and are tankies, others are so pacifist that they don't want a military alliance. There, explained it for ya.

[@haruhisuzumiya6650]

Tankies have good points but this is especially a bad idea, as a socialist I'm for international security alliances with the UN not necessarily because of economic reasons. But more sovereignty and self determination. NATO can further a socialist alliance unlike my soviet counterparts.

[@weiserwolf580]

basically communist and communist sympathizers are against NATO

[@glitchysoup6322]

And then there are the russian/chinese bots, who promote ideas, that weaken the countries, where they are interested in.

[@UltraCasualPenguin]

There wouldn't even be need for militaries if everyone could just solve their differences diplomatically and just learn to live with others peacefully like we currently do here in nordic countries. We finns wouldn't even have FDF in that world. But of course we don't and we have that one madman as our neighbour who can change his mind in blink of an eye.

[@ThatsABean]

And NATO fanboys are dronies with how much they love bombing countries in wars that they have nothing to do with

[@idraote]

What NATO critics (left, far right, populists and pacifists, they all belong) fail to understand is that peaceful negotiations are only possible when the other side wants them too. Russia has been known for decades for despising "talks", perceiving them as weakness. To them, Europe wanting to negotiate is a bunch of weaklings needing to be conquered. A point that the video fails to make is that outside of Europe (or inside, if you count immigrants), there are lots of people who hold a heavy grudge against the US and everything even remotely linked to them. NATO being US centric is an easy target for their ire. Europe's left usually support the claims of these countries.

[@dt2985]

So true brother, Iraq, Lybia and Afghanistan should have just talked to NATO when the Invasion and subsequent occupation by them killed millions

[@user-kk6yg7ds9z]

@@lugaidster no but all the major ones did and most of the small nations did send troops

[@sonneh86]

Europeans opposing NATO are traitors

[@HappyCatholicDane]

@@dt2985 For decades Libya had sponsored terror groups and extremists in Europe. Everyone wanted to get rid of their leader. The Taliban (Not Afghanistan) was heavily involved with the people behind 9/11, assisting and hiding them. As such, a completely legitimate reason for war. I will agree on the 2nd Iraqi war. That was basically an imperialist war for oil. But the Iraqi war was not a NATO mission, and actively opposed by a number of NATO countries.

[@dt2985]

@@HappyCatholicDane These are completely disgusting justifications. Obviously the populations of all three countries suffered under their respective governments. Yet in all three cases the NATO-Intervention (or interventions led by individual NATO countries, a distinction is quite useless) led to destruction of entire populations which were so destructive that all of these countries are still in turmoil to this day. Regarding Libya: The funding of "Terror" (This is also such a useless term too, as if terror organizations like the IRA or the PFLP are not completely in the right to fight against the settler colonialism of imperialist powers) organizations is by far not the only reason of the invasion. Regarding Afghanistan specifically, do you seriously think the allegations that Osama bin Laden hid in Afghanistan (which turned out to be false anyways) was in any way a justification for invading the entire country which led to the death of hundreds of thousands innocent civilians and the suffering of millions (Afghanistan is facing a huge famine currently thanks to the western imposed sanctions btw)

[@DeezNuts-sx9jd]

Abolish NATO.

[@tmhood]

Please don't cut out the natural pauses between sentences. They're there for a reason: to allow the listener to absorb each sentence before the next starts.

[@mariovallanzasca9454]

If so called "Nato expansion" would have went as far as Ukraine back in the 2000s when it was still possible, we would most likely not have war now, viceversa if nato would have not expanded at all we would likely have a Russian baltic now. Anti nato people should think why the closer you go to Russia, the higher support for Nato is, and then figure out

[@zkf5448]

People are anti nato because all of its millitary operation were never defensive ones, iraq Libya and Yugoslavia and now the Sahel.

[@mariovallanzasca9454]

@@zkf5448 that really sucks I agree, but what we can see is only the wars were Nato has been involved as an active player. However what we cannot see and will never know is how many conflicts have actually been prevented by the sheer existence of Nato, which I think are actually a lot

[@erikjohnson9075]

@@zkf5448 iraq, Libya, Yugoslavia and the sahel are not NATO operations. They were NATO member operations or UN operations. The only recent NATO operation was Afghanistan as the US argued that it was attacked on 9/11 by Afghanistan and triggered article 5 mutual defense clause. NATO is a defensive alliance only members are not obligated to join into each others offensive wars.

[@la7dfa]

In Ukraine the Eastern part was Russian friendly, and the Western part EU & NATO friendly. But that was before 2014. So your logic collapses a bit there. But today it has obviously changed due to the Russian terror bombing.

[@zkf5448]

@@erikjohnson9075 it doesn’t matter what you call them, they all share exactly the same nato countries, and in iraq Poland played a very major role if you think they done that out of love you are absolutely wrong.

[@basedmuscleman6539]

as someone on the left i think there are problems with it as there are problems with most bureaucratic structures but what it does in keeping russia from engaging in imperialism towards its former satellite states is unquestionably a good thing

[@basedmuscleman6539]

and the argument that NATO promotes capitalism… every country in the world is capitalist. that’s not something we can escape right now. it’s not like china or russia are leading the world in autonomy of the working class or whatever

[@richpryor9650]

Sorry, but as a devout Tankie representing the league of Tankies, I have to inform you that its only Imperialism and Genocide if the US does it, get fuk'd Epic Mao fortnite dance 420.

[@samrevlej9331]

Wait, this is supposed to be a surprise? I know pro-Americanism is a common stance in the UK, but the phrase “the left is for cooperation and alliance between countries” is overly simplistic. Anti-Nato sentiment spiked following the disaster in the Libyan intervention. Anyway, the two views of Nato aren’t mutially exclusive. Of course it’s stupid to think Nato provoked Russia into war with Ukraine, but the hegemonic and US-dominated aspect of Nato is not negligible. Of course I understand the perspective of people in Eastern Europe, especially now.

[@Raysaltify]

Wait what!?? Stupid to think Nato provoked Russia into doing the invasion of ukraine?? The US has even said themselves that this whole cause of war is because of the Ukraine wanting a membership with NATO. US even admitted that Natos aim was to fully dismantle the military power of Russia, this was all planned after the cold War.

[@sinoroman]

NATO should not have been involved in Libya nor Afghanistan. NATO is still in subsaharan africa today

[@cogitoergosum9069]

I think you mean anti-americanism?

[@terrorgaming459]

America is hated here lol they killed a kid here and used diplomatic immunity to get away with it

[@terrorgaming459]

@@sinoroman so when russia invades ukraine catastrophe but when america does it its just a mistake 😂

[@Welgeldiguniekalias]

NATO to central and eastern Europe, mid 90s: "Get in loser, we're going shopping." Russia: "You are trying to kidnap what I have rightfully stolen, and I think it quite ungentlemanly."

[@Embassy_of_Jupiter]

Let's just end this discussion once and forever by finally creating the Międzymorze

[@Quickshot0]

I'll presume this is the troll response, as quite clearly this point was actually addressed. Still pretty crass to act like European states don't have a will of their own though and just bow to whoever comes by.

[@Embassy_of_Jupiter]

@@Quickshot0 You must have been dropped on your head as a baby if you think OPs comment is in support of Russia

[@Ryan_Alwi]

Kremlin troll go back to Russia

[@gerg5555]

I hope everyone realizes what a massive oversimplification this is. Anytime you hear "the left" or "the right" just know that what you are about to hear will barely be useful for any decision making.

[@anonjo2630]

in terms of general leadership and politics, yes, in terms of political ideology or philosophies of actual human beings, no not at all. There just isn't much of a left in most of the world as leftists moved on from seeing capitalism as viable long over a century ago as it is a system that doesn't account for the value of labour but only accounts for the value of goods. So yeah, there is no real left and the distinction is pretty weak in politics in this capitalist world, but it still very much exists in the people. Most dialectics (left vs right, east vs west, good vs evil) are flawed simplifications because they are expressions of the same idea. That is to say that left versus right is not a real dichotomy, but left and right are just sides of the same argument that become valuable for understanding how to go forward.

[@TheDrapetomanic]

Did you watch the video? He is very nuanced and he is correct.

[@DK12_]

Once again the far left shares the same views as the far right. Ironic.

[@suddenly_radical4558]

Yeah, but for very different reasons.

[@zacharydavis4398]

Thanks for spending the time to create and share this content

[@robg5111]

How patronising to the central Eastern European countries, that they should be denied a choice of partnership. This arbitrary division of East / West... Where is this line? Where do CEE countries sit in relation to this line? All any nation wants us security from potential aggressors and bullies

[@DarkDutch007]

I guess at some point in history the line was the Berlin wall and Iron curtain for what was Western European or Eastern European.

[@mika274]

Imagine in every country on earth was part of NATO. The world would have no war, right?

[@gvibration1]

@@mika274 Turkey won't allow Sweden and Finland to join NATO while they have sanctions against Turkey (PKK). There's always conflict.

[@anonjo2630]

Talking about "This arbitrary division of East versus West" is very ironic for someone defending NATO partnership. Baltic states just want to become "the West". If you really hate the division between East versus West, you should be thinking about how the East and the West can better cooperate rather than wage war.

[@tidbit1877]

@@gvibration1 It's already been taken care of, by political means, you know, talking to one another, duh!

[@gamer228r]

Tankies moment

[@charliemagnebautista2902]

Alt right also and some pro Russia accounts in Twitter

[@Crizakafrijolito]

As a leftist, my issue isn't political in nature; it's about the real use of the alliance for anything other than defense. What happened to Libya was atrocious and nothing was done to prevent something like that happening again.

[@lettuceatter_9956]

If u think what happened in Libya was atrocious then you just seen the tip of the iceberg... Afghanistan, Iraq, somalia, former yugoslavia, kwait... I could go on

[@the0ne809]

@@lettuceatter_9956 Russia: Afghanistan, Chechnya, Ukraine twice, Moldova, Syria, Libya, Georgia. I'm on the left as well but I'm not blind by Russia propaganda. They have always been trying to Russify its neighbors. They did it during the Russian empire, then Soviet Union and now they are doing it again. How do you explain Crimean Greeks in Kazakhstan or Crimean Tartars in Uzbekistan? They just randomly ended up there.

[@America938]

@@lettuceatter_9956 in yougoslav i it basically was no NATO stoped muh genocide and Somalia was in anarchy and in completely anarchy so some sort of power to try to stop it is necessary and Kuwait was invaded by Iraq??? So idk why that is here Afghanistan was run by literal terriost and was hosing a known terriost and Iraq was run by a Sunni extremist (Sadam) and was prone to invading countries(Iran Kuwait)

[@Tjalve70]

If you think Libya was a failure, look at Iraq. Iraq used to be a friend of USA. Then USA decided to attack Iraq, and eventually essentially gave them to Iran, who is a traditional enemy of USA. If that's not a failure, I don't know what is. NATO may be a very good defensive alliance. But their member states keep messing up things that are not related to defense.

[@chris582]

@@lettuceatter_9956 aside from what the other guy said… Somalia was UN a peacekeeping intervention that couldn’t handle the chaos and accepted US help. Kuwait was effing invaded by Iraq and was condemned by the whole world. Stop sniffing glue.

[@Nabium]

Nato expansion in Europe is the way to decrease American influence. We need a stronger European side of Nato to balance out the warhawks in Washington, while keeping an important organisation which key objective is to protect it's member states. It would be really good if Europe could stick together even more. If Sweden, Finland, Ireland, Austria, Switzerland, Bosnia, Georgia and ecentually down the line Ukraine were to all join Nato, we'd have a more unified Europe to balance out American dominance and make Europe and North America equal partners. We'd also need increased military spending in Europe and decreased military spending in the US. As someone on the left I used to see the arguments against Nato, especially after the invasion of Afghanistan. But I now think the good outweighs the evil when it comes to Nato, security situations can change rapidly and a good defensive pact is invaluable. But we do need to stand up to American lead foreign policy and interventions that goes against international law. That can only be done with a stronger European Nato, not a weaker one.

[@timberwolfe1645]

AND the USA would WELCOME that!! We were yellimg at Germany and rest of NATO about them not upholding the 3% GDP agreement to the ALLIANCE. If you guys are stronger, ALL the better. We LOVE YOU EUROPEANS. Great Culture, wonderful people, and great allies. We LOVE you guys, and ready to defend you again and again in World Wars 3 and 4!

[@Nickelback8469]

Every American I've talked to about the subject wants Europe to be in control of their own defense, the majority of American people want Europeans to be control of their continent and we want you all to be our partners, not our servants. But so many European countries take their defense spending for granted, and now with Russia knocking on the eastern doorstep, it's becoming very clear that NATO would quickly fall apart without US guidance.

[@Nabium]

@@Nickelback8469 Yes, America has been pushing for increased European spending on military for years. That's why Obama made Stoltenberg the head of Nato, because he had the same ideas. It's really on Europe to do these changes. And they should, America spends waaaay too much on military and it's draining the American tax payers money.

[@jackmcmanis6895]

A stronger and more European NATO allows the US military to focus resources on protecting our allies and interests in East Asia against the CCP. If Europe can keep Russia in check, we aren't positioned in a two front posture against the two largest autocratic states in the world.

[@SDZ675]

That was exactly what Trump was going for.

[@valtteripennanen4043]

As someone who is politically more or less on the central left, I do agree that NATO is a benefit to its members and to those who want to join it, such as Finland and Sweden. Still, I’m taking a neutral stand on this as I don’t want to get too political as there always that one guy who takes this is as an insult. In any regard, NATO is beneficial for everyone as it provides security from hostile countries, such as Russia, who want to get their “former glory” back.

[@maxweber4818]

Sure was beneficial for Iraq

[@slic3y68]

without NATO lots of smaller and weaker countries are very vulnerable

[@villekuronen6242]

sure it was so beneficial for yugoslavia and many middle-eastern countries

[@kenos911]

@@maxweber4818 Iraq wasn’t a NATO war, several countries within it directly opposed it and the ones that didn’t weren’t doing that much of significance in the war

[@KvaGram]

You explained the conflict pretty well. I'm sure there are details I even I can't think of right now that should be included. I would strictly point out that NATO have no business being in offensive wars such as Libya. As you point out, that war was a disaster, and General Secretary Stoltenberg have stated he don't regret shit about it. That does not exactly put the alliance in a good light.

[@anguswaterhouse9255]

We can't be 100% perfect. That could have been handled better for sure.

[@youssefebrahim368]

The military action in Libya was authorised by the UNSC RESOLUTION 1973.

[@somethinglikethat2176]

The problem is that without NATO intervention Gaddafi would've slaughtered anyone even remotely connected to the rebels. There could have been a NATO lead peacekeeping effort but that creates its own set of problems.

[@erozionzeall6371]

@@anguswaterhouse9255 It’s a mistake that’ll never be forgotten. Millions of ruined because of it.

[@erozionzeall6371]

@@somethinglikethat2176 There wouldn’t be rebels without the West funding them.

[@piwi2005]

I think you forgot a last point which is just anti-americanism. This is why, for west european countries such as Spain, France, Italy and Germany, extreme left and extreme right agree on their anti-NATO stand. Another thing is that it is not exclusively one thing or the other (America/Capitalism/tension vs Security/protection). It is both at the same time. Like for EU, countries weight pros and cons and join the club, freely, because they believe it is in their own interest. They don't do it to be "pro-american", or "anti-russian", they go where their interests are, and the closer to Russia you are, the more you are entitled to protect yourself from it. At the end of the day, you can be as much anti-american or anti-capitalist as you wish, protesting against your own country policy is something allowed only to people not living under Russian rule. Like Mitterrand, a left president, once said "The pacifists are in the West, the missiles in the East".

[@Anonymous-uu8fw]

Tldr: There are some unintelligent people on both sides of the political isle.

[@nizarshawwa3704]

No mention of what Nato did to Libya or Syria?

[@DarkDutch007]

Was that NATO or NATO members? cause there is a difference.

[@alexandermarkov300]

@@DarkDutch007 and what's the difference?

[@williamsherman1942]

@@alexandermarkov300 Because Libya was a UN operation under the NATO flag and Syria is a civil war which had western hands in it. Not as much to do with NATO

[@samueltrusik3251]

For now, having NATO is a good idea. Better than not having it.

[@anonimo2932]

yeah, but as Italian and European, i really wish for a European army.

[@calebjones960]

@@anonimo2932 why?

[@Alex-bc1hx]

Do you think that Liban and syrian think NATO is a good Idea ?

[@user-cx9nc4pj8w]

@@Alex-bc1hx Do you think Estonia and Poland think not having NATO is a good idea?

[@ten_tego_teges]

@@calebjones960 Because US protection comes with strings attached. Those strings are the hegemony of American corporations in Europe and the lack of strategic independence in the region. American wars in the middle east are the reason we have mass migration in Europe. They play stupid games, while we live with the consequences.

[@HypercopeEmia]

it's truly beutifull how people think a defensive allience pushes other countires to war

[@mortyjames5897]

Leftists have a tendency to sympathize with literally anyone who opposes the USA. That could be Putin or North Korea, often both. They'll totally ignore the reality that Lithuanians, Finns, and Ukrainians live with, in favour of their own reality where they get to play the rebel who defends a foreign country that's waging a war of aggression against its smaller neighbour. It's a very childish way of thinking, which is exactly what we expect from leftists.

[@alcabone1126]

A 'defensive alliance' that bombed Libya and Serbia(neither of which invaded a NATO country. Yes the Serbian army most likely did war crimes in Kosovo, however the people of Belgrade should not be punished for it. Libya was bombed and Gaddafi was killed, 11 years later and the civil war nato caused is still ongoing. Iraq was invaded by the US and other Nato countries(UK, Poland, etc). It caused the deaths of at least 100,000 people and the creation of ISIS.

[@blakedake19]

@@alcabone1126 Both of those operations were mandated by ONU and so both China and Russia agreed to those.

[@legatusmatheus9815]

@@alcabone1126 Of course, because ISIS wasn't going to form anyway? Had the invasion never occurred, Europe and America might've been free from Middle-Eastern attacks and terrorism, but the Middle East itself was always on the path of utter war. Don't kid yourself.

[@terrorgaming459]

DEFENSIVE😂😂😂 iraq Afghanistan yugoslavia iraq twice grenada panama vietnam not very defensive uk should leave nato and join russia china america forced thousands of brits to die in Afghanistan and iraq

[@thobanimqadi]

This is a video that's is needed from this war.

[@JohnSmith-qb1gw]

Just wanted to point out you didn't touch NATO's illegal wars and bombing campaigns at all, which is one criticism of NATO I haven't seen deconstructed yet. You only touched on ones approved by the UN and therefore legal, if disastrous in execution.

[@siyacer]

"Illegal wars" Do you even know what "illegal" means, or is it another buzzword you anti-NATO folk keep using?

[@answerman9933]

This is because NATO cannot be touched!

[@Jay_in_Japan]

Which ones specifically?

[@drmodestoesq]

@@Jay_in_Japan He probably thinks the Serbs had legitimate territorial claims after the breakup of Yugoslavia. Or maybe he's as out to lunch as Chomsky and thinks the only reason NATO attacked Serbia was because they were the last bastion of socialism in Europe.

[@thanasisrks4944]

What did you expect, free media and journalism?

[@jameswatt7249]

The far right and far left start to converge at a certain point.

[@VesproDBA]

Just ask Ukraine during WW2 .. starved by Communists and Fascists

[@DGAMINGDE]

Autoritarian extremists start to converge at some point. No matter if leftist or rightist (with few exceptions) both tend to actually become socially conservative (Chinas ban on femboys and more than 3 hours of gaming for children). It actually gets funny when you learn that parties like the Japanese communists are the most anti-china party as they were the only major japanese party to not congratulate the CCP on their 100th birthday despite themselves being a communist party. And don't get me started on Nepal. I believe someone understanding that party-system is the smartest person on earth (democratic marxist-leninists + maoists, social democrats are the "right-leaning" ideology, splits, vote buying etc.). Authoritarians are more alike then you think. Leftists are more confusing than you already think.

[@Tjalve70]

There isn't really much of a difference between communism and fascism.

[@chukuzosike7615]

@@DGAMINGDE what? why have you used China as your example?

[@DGAMINGDE]

@@chukuzosike7615 Its a matching example.

[@kristian1485]

Looks like the camera was out of focus on this one, guys. Otherwise excellent video. Keep up the good work :)

[@CustomStoryGatherers]

Gigachad: "Why yes, I do agree with Bilous' view, how did you know?"

[@adamwaterhouse]

A military alliance is never about "promoting peace".

[@darksector1389]

Every sovereign nation has their own right to create or join a defensive alliance for their own security. If Russia doesn't like it then too bad, its called democracy.

[@MartenTitan]

"If you want peace you have to be prepared for war." some roman general

[@TheSpiritombsableye]

Peace only exists if everyone wants it. All it takes is one person to disagree. Thus it needs defending. An alliance occurs to boosters the means each entity can't do on it's own.

[@lettuceatter_9956]

@@MartenTitan who ironically invaded and anexed countless territories

[@lettuceatter_9956]

@@darksector1389 democracy is code for freedom of capitalist expansion

[@DmitriPolkovnik]

Russia has had a revanchist foreign policy for a long time. I think blaming NATO is naive, it assumes that Russia wasn't planning on trying to return to its former sphere of influence. Its like blaming Britain and France for being allied to the Czechs and Poland as the cause for their annexation by Germany and not the fact that Germany wanted its empire back. (This is just analogy, I have no love for my current government and I'm not saying Putin is as bad as Hitler). If NATO didn't exist I think these same events would be playing out anyway, with the addition that Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania would already have been knocked off or forced to give their Russian minority a veto in foreign policy. NATO is just a pretext, whatever you think about NATO, it's just an excuse to wage war for Moscow.

[@Spido68_the_spectator]

Spot on, mate ! Putin litterally wants to recreate the Russian empire, and somehow he still is surprised / mad that the neighbors don't agree with that.

[@dahonnohab7504]

and therefore i conclude that wrong + wrong = doesn't make things right...

[@user-cx9nc4pj8w]

To all the people that oppose NATO because of actions outside of its member states: Do you really think they wouldn't have happened if NATO didn't exist? Do you really think that France, the Uk, and the US were only able or willing to wage their wars because of NATO? You can be against foreign intervention and suppport a defensive alliance. And just remember that for every other country that joins NATO the US's grip on it weakens. If you care about protecting people, protecting democracy, and protecting freedom, you should support NATO.

[@erozionzeall6371]

Western liberalism is a lie. It oppresses the entire world over. The West has never stopped being evil and power hungry since its colonial era.

[@magnateze]

WOW, where can I join nato!

[@666Maeglin]

Agreed so many people have just such a binary one dimensional perspective, they only think of left and right, coloured vs white, and ideology based race, gender, feminism theory vs rational scepticism seeing there is no factual base for these..

[@JamesSmith-ix5jd]

you think france would go to war with iraq, libya, syria, Afghanistan... what's for?

[@mabroukgayed9070]

Framing it through NATO gives a better image to a conflict. Usually when a country invades, the invading country is looked at suspiciously, while using NATO as a vehicle of war, gives the image you are there for 'defensive' reasons, as NATO is a "defensive" organisation. Now people finally figured out the scam and world leaders are trying to find any way to change NATO's image. Going so far as to spread propaganda from once pretty neutral media.

[@VaucluseVanguard]

Countries have geostrategic interests. These are dictated by their physical geography - where they are, what natural resources they have. These interests are enduring. Like it or not, even if it all comes apart, England will remain the largest and most powerful country in the British Isles. It will have a geostrategic interest in what happens in Scotland Wales and Ireland - and vice versa. Because it is the biggest, there is a natural power imbalance between it and the other countries. Consequently, those countries will look for relationships to balance that imbalance. Historically, before Union, Scotland often looked to ally with France. For Ireland today, the EU and the US are their most important strategic allies. While I broadly support the Irish republic in its position to the NI Protocol, be under no illusion Dublin can only take the position it does (sometimes unreasonable - mostly not) because of EU and US support. The countries and peoples of Eastern Europe have Agency, and their own geostrategic interests. They have decided who they wish to align with and it was not Russia. What the position of those on the political left and right demonstrate by their anti-NATO stance - and now their pressure on Ukraine to compromise - i.e. give up 20% of their country and become economically unviable - is their utter contempt for democracy and the rights of the ordinary citizen.

[@mrgeorgeb0062]

While I disagree in regards to the NI part. I agree with the rest kinda sad how much we prefer cheaper gas prices over helping an ally…

[@guneruribarren2953]

@@mrgeorgeb0062 well that depends which country you are from. The USA and the uk are helping MASSIVELY Ukraine

[@otsoaunola9515]

What kind of a framing is that. Nato as an organisation and its members have been responsible for most offensive wars done by developed powers from the 90s onwards. Also saying that the left of center position is pro international alliances is insane. There is no left of center position on international alliances.

[@johtajakansio]

Nice framing there. Most developed powers ARE Nato members. Who else could have it been?

[@otsoaunola9515]

@@johtajakansio well than the framing of nato as advancing peace was just false

[@jareddixon9108]

@otso aunola It’s not a paradox, in order to maintain peace, you have to be capable of defending it, and sometimes that requires you to go on the offensive. Ever gone up to stop a bully before?

[@robertjarman3703]

There haven´t been a lot of those kinds of wars since the 1990s. NATO itself didn´t participate in Iraq in 2003, the individual member states went along with it, but critical member states like Germany, Canada, and France refused, and France helped to prevent any Security Council Resolutions to go ahead with it by UN sanction as the US planned to do it. Aside from that, most of what they did was either with the consent of the country they were deploying to, like Iraq in 2014 against ISIS, with UN Security Council authorization, like in Libya with the no fly zone (where Russia and China have vetoes and you need to get 9 of 15 members to agree) and same with Somalia.

[@otsoaunola9515]

@@robertjarman3703 thats irrelevant, the point was that nato has done nothing to prevent these wars and at worse acted as cordinator of agression like in bosnia and afganistan. Thats why you cant use a framing like nato prevents wars unless you find only peace in europe relevant. Something thats also breaking down

[@BlackReaps]

... fuzzy left, hd right. took me off guard for a moment

[@stephenclark9917]

Horseshoe theory, it's not a linear spectrum, the far left merge with the far right.

[@suddenly_radical4558]

Yes, the far left want to get rid of the elites stolen/inherited private property and the other one wants to kill jews

[@Gaywizard11]

Horseshoe theory is bunk.

[@imnotnotgameiacmaniac5327]

most of "horsehoe" theory is just authoritarian leftist and authoritarian right wingers agreeing on and anti-liberal beliefs. doesn't prove anything about the far left and far right actually being the same

[@AndreiYoLo]

Some dont even care what Russia did in Europe before, joining EU and NATO was one of the best option for future of the countrys that had seen what Russians can do, what you see now in Ukrain was happend before more times in countrys that now some of them are safe in NATO.. in my eyes Russia in nothing right now, i will better help a animal then a russian.

[@davidalmeida2991]

That’s just hate speech. Not all Russians are alike. Hell, some even dislike Putin!

[@itzakb]

bruh your post is so ignorant it is appalling... you didn't even say the leadership of russia. That is the blind hatred that NATO and the Soviet union created and you are just another foolish follower of it... smh every person in the middle east would say they would help a dog over an American probably... what will you say, they are wrong because they arent a democracy? Who put you on that high horse to determine the aspects of democracy? This ignorance will put in on the far right in 20 years time...

[@AndreiYoLo]

​@@davidalmeida2991 yea? so if you dislike a criminal and still watch him giveing orders to kill inocent people, that dont make you accomplice? People who care about what happening, they do something, and you see at news, protests, random military office explosions and so on.

[@louisecorchevolle9241]

@@davidalmeida2991 I am French, we have atomic bombs as defense in number enough with nuclear submarines as Charles de Gaulle thought we don't want American protection but our own Nato is not realy defensive it has attacked former Yougoslavia without security council mandate; Nato lead by US it is only them they decide how to respond to a nuclear attack if it is Joue Biden he might press to its pants button Nato is a machine to sell US weapons and destroys for example French military complex often with Britain as it took unfairly a contract of 50 billion $ of French submarine Nato has no answer to Russian hypersonic weapons so cannot fully protect its allies Why are Ireland, Austria not in Nato ? Sweden , Finland might to have infamous Bazar Erdogan negotiations before being admitted in Nato Last point it is said that Nato is an alliance of democratic countries look at Nato's second Army the Turkish; a joke Edrdodans Turkey is not at all democratic

[@GoDLiKeKakashi]

It seems like people have mixed up the actual obligations that being a member of NATO entail. I keep seeing Libya or the Balkans being mentioned and people talk as though any offensive action taken is the result of the alliance itself, when in reality it is the fault of your national governments. NATO does not impose any obligations for offensive military action and any such action taken by member states are done of their own volition. You may not like it and disagree with it, but the only time a member of NATO must take military actions on behalf of others is when they are attacked in a defensive conflict. So if you're from the UK and you don't like that you helped the U.S. with their middle eastern adventures, that's not the fault of NATO, it's the fault of parliament and the prime minister.

[@nunyabusiness863]

This point is missed often. Only article 5 obligates action. But an offensive strike has no obligatory collective involvement. That being said, without nato can we honestly say mr putin would not have acted in 'behalf of the russian speaking citizens' of estonia? The russians are being very very careful not to strike nato targets.

[@WalterBurton]

An unexpectedly good essay presentation. Kudos. 👍👍👍

[@maximumsdecimusceckhladze3173]

I like this guy much better than the other one please keep him in every video

[@Count_R]

My point of view is that in a situation with 2 alliances (east and west), countries like Ukraine who are threatened by one of them choose the opposite side to survive. So the fact that NATO has an open door policy doesn't automatically mean countries choose to join NATO, but choose to survive and therefore "choose" to join NATO. (e.g. Finland, Sweden).

[@jumpinjehosephat1877]

Russia:"We want to turn you into a vasal state and destroy your heritage to replace with Russian heritage." NATO:"We won't destroy you, either you stay neutral or join us." This guy:"Clearly NATO is forcing them to join it, what with being accepting and all."

[@Count_R]

@@jumpinjehosephat1877 That's not what I'm saying. What I mean is that countries seem to have only two options, choose east or west. Because if a country wants to stay neutral then there is almost no guarantee to survive, so they choose one side out of fear. So in practice you don't have an fair/reasonable choose. Countries that want to stay neutral, but are threatened by one side are more likely to choose the opposite side than to remain neutral. To summarize; some neutral countries want to remain neutral, but have to choose a side, but otherwise they would not necessarily have wanted to take any side.

[@gio-ko7kf]

@@Count_R Well even those “neutral” countries like finland and sweden were heavily leaning towards the west anyways

[@adam13magic63]

My main problem with NATO is that the Europeans haven't be pulling their weight since the end of the cold war.

[@Tjalve70]

Your problem is that you are wrong in how much weight needs to be pulled. USA has 40% of the military budget OF THE ENTIRE WORLD. NATO in total has close to 60% of it. UK, France and Germany together have a larger military budget than Russia. NATO, without USA, would still be the largest and most powerful military alliance in the world. It's not that NATO's European countries are not pulling their weight. It's that USA is pulling MUCH harder than there is any need for.

[@williamsherman1942]

@@Tjalve70 It is because we got more then just one continent to take care of, lol

[@Tjalve70]

@@benchoflemons398 I agree with what you're saying, but I don't agree with how you're saying it. It's not that the other NATO countries are underspending, it's USA that are overspending. And I actually think USA is spending THREE times the agreed minimum. I believe it was under Obama that NATO even agreed on a minimum. Before that, there was no agreement on how much money should be spent. But since such a minimum was agreed upon, I do understand why you're calling the other countries freeloaders, even though I don't quite agree with it. I do however agree that USA should leave NATO. Maybe not for the same reasons that you mean it, but that's not so important.

[@williamsherman1942]

@@Tjalve70 France or Germany aren’t fit to lead a NATO-like alliance, if anything they should have their own EU army. Would spare us a lot of resources to focus on screwing the Chinese

[@hanneskarlbom6644]

Big issue that I think is a major concern when it comes to nato is its similarities to pre ww1/2 aliances. And just like them, rather than bring security it risk causing a relatively minor local conflict to become a world wide issue. Imagine if Ukrine already was in nato, if putin really is insane like some say and if he had attacked in that situation, that would be ww3 right there and then. That risk is very real will all nato countries. And personaly I don't want to join a war half across the world that we have nothing to do with especaily when we've never been under any active threat. Edit: I can't bother with fixing the spelling.

[@SirGruff]

Counterpoint: Russia invaded Ukraine because they aren’t in NATO. If they were, Russia wouldn’t have attacked. Why do you think Eastern European countries were so keen to join the bloc?

[@hanneskarlbom6644]

@@SirGruff you abosolutely certain of that? If that's true then it would also make the argument that russia only attacked them because they wouldn't have a chance to once they join nato more legit. It's still a conflict that has nothing to do with me and realisticaly shouldn't, unless ofcourse nato decides to do something stupid or any anti nato countries, if nothing else it's putting your fate in the hands of others, others who haven been proven to be unpredictable.

[@Nasrudith]

​@@hanneskarlbom6644 That is the logic of a paranoid psychopath. "I had to attack my neighbor because he was going to install a security camera. Otherwise I would lose the opportunity to murder him in his sleep. And yet people use that argument unironically.

[@hanneskarlbom6644]

@@Nasrudith well it's really not considering that's what russia claims themselves. They are outright saying that they attacked because they didn't want another nato border, how true that claim is is up to debate(how that now is spelled?). Besides, would it be out of character for russia to be out of their mind? And I'm not claiming they are, I'm just saying that what you are saying is simply supporting that argument. Edit: Just realized youre another person.

[@professorzoom2108]

@@hanneskarlbom6644 Russians have always been insane and rude, it is almost like they have no compassion for anyone. Some Russians have way too much pride and are often described as megalomaniacs. Especially Putin.

[@osvaldo4696]

what was said in 0:23 is like advertising OPEC as an organization to promote green energy

[@Wasserfeld.]

NATO is great for defence. The issue is, its campaigns are often not for defence, but for imperialistic foreign interference in places it has no right to be. Iraq showed, that no matter if NATO countries themselves oppose the war, the US and UK (although with the UK, I'd say less so now due to public opinion) will do whatever they want, even breaking UN conventions. NATO sits by while non-NATO but aligned countries behave very badly while also claiming the moral high ground. It also forces NATO countries into hypocrisy on the world stage (e.g. complaining about human rights abuses, while the US has gitmo). So while I wouldn't want us to leave NATO, the often Washington lead alliance makes many people who follow foreign affairs uneasy. NATO should be for defence of our land, not used for foreign wars.

[@MrDanisve]

Very well said. This is the main issue of NATO. Its being used as a tool by the US in its hegemony. And the UKs ambition to still be a relevant "global power" I dont know what changes need to happen for this to be fixed. I do not like being a hypocrite. Jens Stoltenberg say "We bombed you, to save you" is one of the most stupid things ive ever heard.

[@lordloss3398]

If a nato member has a war with non nato member and other nato members don't get involved then the conflict has nothing to do with nato. It's not a unified foreign policy, its a mutual defence treaty. Us invasion of Iraq has nothing to do with nato, that was their own thing

[@MrDanisve]

@@lordloss3398 Yes. But Afghanistan was NATO. US messes so much with the middle east, wars, proxy wars, arming certain rebels etc. They make some people so mad they go blow up buildings. Then they call in article 5 on the "innocent" nation of Afghanistan... I have a friend that is totaly messed up after being in the mountains of Afghanistan for years. Thats kinda why i want US out of NATO, or tie US hands somewhat. So we cannot have shit like that happening again.

[@lordloss3398]

@@MrDanisve because not being in nato would stop usa from seeking reprisals in Afghanistan? If anything us would just end up sending more of its forces there and the rest of nato wouldn't have to provide support for them which would be better for everybody else. This alliance doesn't stop its members from having their own foreign policy and interests, the us would act upon theirs with or without nato. Get better elected officials that won't drag your friends and other nato members into wars, don't blame nato for bad elected officials.

[@MrDanisve]

@@lordloss3398 I cannot controll US, but what i like to control is what my nation does. We could not do that with Afghanistan cause of NATO. That was the point. Having a foreign policy and invading other countries against the local peoples will. Is quite the different thing.

[@hermanwooster8944]

This video speaks of the "far-left" - opposing NATO, as if you are extremely partisan if you disagree with the organization. There are people across the entire political spectrum that disagrees with it.

[@hs5312]

I would argue foreign policy is the one area of politics that does not fit into a defined left or right at all

[@calvin7330]

They acknowledge that there are people from all over the spectrum oppose NATO, it's just more surprising if they're from the far left

[@maninredhelm]

That's not what they're saying. They're saying that groups that hold other positions firmly associated with the far left also have an anti-NATO leaning, and in their particular case that seems counter-intuitive. They're not filing anti-NATO positions into the far left camp. They pointed out factions on the right that take the same position, mostly for pro-sovereignty and anti-international cooperation reasons.

[@jaixzz]

Monetary policy has to prefer a sales surplus to a purchasing deficit. The game of money does not make anyone a better person. Countries also need to have basic pension, health & welfare services, otherwise Life 'under the arches' must be hell.

[@PrograError]

if i get a dollar for every visible pixel, the webcam styled visual on the right would have earned me thousands

[@David_Granger]

People on the right sadly often generalize leftistm. I'm on the left, actually further than many people would find desirable, and I'm pro NATO and blaming Russia for the invasion. Disclaimer: I'm not saying TLDR does that, he doesn't, it's just a general statement.

[@aarvlo]

Being against NATO doesn't mean being pro Russia either

[@tudoraragornofgreyscot8482]

@@aarvlo there’s literally no other stance you can take

[@David_Granger]

@@aarvlo very often.

[@aarvlo]

@@tudoraragornofgreyscot8482 i think NATO is a criminal organization that creates violence in the name of "defense" like they did in Yugoslavia and Libya. They are no better than the criminals in the kremlin. i stand with the people of Ukraine but i will never support NATO

[@louisecorchevolle9241]

I am French, we have atomic bombs as defense in number enough with nuclear submarines as Charles de Gaulle thought we don't want American protection but our own Nato is not realy defensive it has attacked former Yougoslavia without security council mandate; Nato lead by US it is only them they decide how to respond to a nuclear attack if it is Joue Biden he might press to its pants button Nato is a machine to sell US weapons and destroys for example French military complex often with Britain as it took unfairly a contract of 50 billion $ of French submarine Nato has no answer to Russian hypersonic weapons so cannot fully protect its allies Why are Ireland, Austria not in Nato ? Sweden , Finland might to have infamous Bazar Erdogan negotiations before being admitted in Nato Last point it is said that Nato is an alliance of democratic countries look at Nato's second Army the Turkish; a joke Edrdodans Turkey is not at all democratic

[@BasicLib]

I think this question is actually a distraction, a cover that hides something deeper… Bear with me here cause this is going to be a long one. I will explore this in 3 sections clearly delineated for ease of understanding. Feel free to respond with either advice or commentary. Let me preface this by saying I am NOT a westerner, I am African(Nigerian) so I have no dog in either fight. But I will take a look at things from a Status Quo perspective and not really bother to explore the philosophical implication or moral questions of the Status Quo or Proposed Alternatives. Opposition to NATO spans the entire political spectrum, from right-wing nationalists to unrepentant Marxist Leninists, and has for many decades, but this is only the tip of the iceberg. There are two connected explanations and I will explore them both separately. In many ways, opposition to everything from NATO to the IMF to the World Bank the UN, and everything else is actually a reflection of one of the most prominent political forces of the past half-century and too often many highly political, people don't see it because it appears as a reasonable position to them... Anti-Americanism. 1) EUROPEANS, LIBERALS, AND DELUSIONS OF EQUALITY There is probably no polity in modern history that has reviled yet seemingly unscathed as the United States of America and no people as derided and mocked yet as wealthy and powerful as Americans (and yes I will use this term to mean US Americans, don't @ me Latin Americans) For many, much of the issues with these organizations isn't so much their existence, but the American Presence and dominance within it. To many around the world, there is no state they have stronger opinions on than the US, and that is because it is everywhere. They follow its media, speak its language, live lives using technologies developed there, its political systems are closely followed and scrutinized, and everything about it is known and talked about in a way that you can see everywhere. For many in the west, they are resentful of this dominance, to them the Americans don’t deserve the position they occupy: “I mean look at them… they're so flawed, so stupid, so irresponsible, so selfish. If only we could get them out, things would be much better”. To this cohort, the Absence of the Americans would justify all these institutions this is why so many people are seemingly in support of pretty much the exact same institutions, just without the Americans. you can see it here in the comment sections already. The amount of times I've heard westerners describe pretty much the same institutions just without the US always makes me laugh. The problem with this cohort however is that at its core, the Americans aren't at the heart of these institutions just causes… NATO isn't dominated by the Americans because that's just the way it is but rather because these institutions are a reflection of the global distribution of power. The is the Wealthiest, Largest(next to Canada), most militarily powerful, financially dominant, culturally influential, and technologically advanced state in the Western World, and it's not even close. There is not even competition, the US blows the rest of its similar states out of the water. Germany might have a great Healthcare system, Norway's impressive social security, and New Zealand a very peaceful foreign policy but none of these determine power. The way the world works is and has always been a function of who has the power to shape it. And not many states are capable of exerting this power. Collectively much of the west doesn't have this power separate from the one that still does and in recognition of this, the nations of the west have banded together warts and all with what is effectively their star player. I usually use an analogy, the Broader West (and this includes nonwestern key allies like Japan, Korea, etc) acts as a Team, a team that individually has a lot of good players, competent in their own right (Germany, France, Japan, UK, etc) but by far and away, their best player, their star player the one who nets them 80 -100 goals a season in the US, a polity that wields truly incomprehensible levels of capability (it's funny just how few understand how powerful the US really is). And so rationally to have THE best team ever assembled in human history, it must include THE best player in human history. The simple truth of the matter is the Western Alliance (includes Japan, Australia, and co) has the best standards of living ever recorded, and occupy collectively a place of such prominence and power that no one is stupid enough to give it up. This is why repeated French Attempts to eject the Americans from this system have always failed, pretty much everyone recognizes France's arrogant stupidity and does not pay it much heed. Because regardless of how irresponsible the Americans are, their presence on this team guarantees and perpetuates Western DOminance and the ridiculously privileged positions western states occupy in the international system that allows for the insanely high standards of living you have. This then brings me to the other cohort of those who resist these institutions, those who are not delusional western Liberals… 2) THE LEFT, THE RIGHT, AND THE REST FROM THE WEST For many of the Far Right and Far Left, and many from parts of the world wholly outside of this system… The system itself is the enemy. Liberalism, Capitalism, Western Hegemony. They are the defining features of the US, this is the game the US plays and plays it well, why wouldn't it, it is the world's first Liberal Republic, the most vigorous adopter of Capitalism, and THE western Hegemon. The US just by being the US and being as powerful as it is simply isn't a problem to the cohort, it is THE problem. This is why for this group almost everything goes back to the US, all the problems of the world can be blamed on them, it is the great boogie man of all for every leftist that losses an election to every child that transitions, from the “destruction of family values” to the “destruction of class solidarity” the US is THE problem because at its core these forces are anti-Status Quo and the US is the ultimate embodiment of the Status Quo, it is the peasant who rose to become King. Following the world wars, it was them who rebuilt the world and created the first world’s system and have led that system for 77 years now. Over the course of 246 years, they won the great Ideological Struggle of the Post-Enlightnemnt World, beat Monarchism, beat Fascism, beat Socialism. Defeated all their competitors (save for the rise of One) To this group Ejection of the Americans from these institutions simply won't be enough, these institutions must be destroyed to make way for whatever future they all have their “ideal”. This is why so many leftists, despite Russia, China, and Iran not being leftist support them, because they just want to defeat the US and its alliance, and they would take anyone, anyone, at all. To many who want to upend the world in whatever way they see it, they must first defeat the US, and unfortunately not enough think through the implications of what that entails… 3) AMERICAN ENDURANCE Personally, I have no ill-feeling toward the Americans playing their game. In fact, in many ways, I am impressed at what they have been able to accomplish in so short a time, and frankly, I find the perennial underestimation of the Americans by their rivals amusing. It is never considered that maybe the Americans are actually competent and capable, the perennial need to berate them, blame them, dismiss them, or whatever just always struck me as funny and self-aggrandizing arrogant but alas westerners, especially Europeans are nothing if not this. I see no end of NATO any time soon, no displacement of the US from its position of Western Leadership, and only a slight decline in relative western power as other challengers strengthen (most notable China) but as long as the US keeps its coalition together, it will not be toppled. And for all the huffing and puffing of leftists and nationalists, its coalition remains strong because they all recognize they are stronger together than apart. This is why the west remains so dominant, and baring a decision of unparalleled stupidity it will likely remain this way.

[@jamadir]

Very nice analysis

[@BasicLib]

@@jamadir thanks Was afraid it’ll turn off people cause of how in-depth it went (which frankly is still only the surface, entire books could be written about how the very existence of the US as an entity affects politics)

[@kenos911]

Nice, leaving a comment here to read later

[@cassiusdalcazarosta8010]

Thanks for this nice comment! I'll save it for later.

[@BasicLib]

@@cassiusdalcazarosta8010 Sir Cassius. I look forward to fighting for her majesty with you. Saints help us all !

[@anonymous0269]

Really good video

[@PETE4955]

Knowledge is a useful thing and meny think they have it.

[@Ganjor420]

There's lots of legit criticism about NATO, like my personal favorites, the 2% Military-spending target and invasions in the middle east... but this is not the right time for discussions like that. The last decades of peace would have been good, and there will come a right time again in the futtre. But maybe not right in the middle of a war at NATOs borders.

[@michaeldunham3385]

So I'm guessing that you love brutal dictatorships and murderous regimes like the Taliban

[@Duck-wc9de]

the 2% spending target is so that NATO isnt jsut the US and european countries outsourcing their defence expenditure to the US, wich is probably one of the few smart things Trump insisted on, because if it wasnt respected, european countries would become even more dependent in the US, and even more money from american taxpayers would be to keep Germany safe. This would create resentment in the US people (because they would see their social programs beein cut even further, while europe would have so much free cash for them) and in the eu (because they would see their countries completly defenseless and completly dependent on the american will) and the invasions of the middle east, there was actually just one, the invasion of Afganistan, because of 9-11. the invasion of Iraq was a choice of the american government. SOME members of NATO choosed by themselfs to get in Iraq too. NATO only provided training missions, not actuall soldiers to figth there.

[@legrandliseurtri7495]

@@michaeldunham3385 The americans spent 20 years in Afghanistan, and nothing changed. In fact, things got worse: countries in a state of constant civil wars don't make for good places to live, weirdly enought. Since the USA has finally ran away from this country, living conditions have actually seen some improvements despite the talibans's restrictions on rights, particulary those of women, and despite the harsh economic sanctions placed on Afghanistan.

[@Ganjor420]

@@Duck-wc9de I totally get that the US doesn't want to cross finance European defense... but instead of forcing us to pay more, they could just pay less. Like, way less. They could cut spending by 50% and still be waay ahead of everyone else. I'm not saying I don't want to pay my fair share - just 2% is way to high. (But again, that's a discussion for peace time. Now is a time to invest - just the last couple decades were not.)

[@Ganjor420]

@@michaeldunham3385 You mean those Taliban who - after 2 decades of american occupation, spending billions of dollars and bombing countless civilians - needed like 14 days to come back after the mission was deemed a failure? Oh yea, that really worked out well...

[@TheECSH]

i can only say, this does not represent the view of the whole of Europe. Maybe the politically left, especially those from the economically well-off countries of Western Europe would see NATO as a bad thing, as the US enforcing its will on the world. But I know from personal experiences of living in East Asia and Central/Eastern Europe, people here tend of welcome and appreciate the presence of the US to maintain order. Who else is goin to stop Russia and China when they invade their neighbors?

[@bouabdellahredha6494]

Your point of view is more like fear of something to happen but to us something have already happened you're afraid of China and Russia invading other neighbors but America have already invaded countries many many times whether you approval quote unquote NATO approves this this is not right America have already invaded dozens of countries Russia and China have not invaded a single country yet and you're afraid of fat but you're not afraid of it already happened it does not make sense it's like saying I'm afraid of the pan flipping up and you're the one holding the pan

[@Duck-wc9de]

one thing that people should think a little bit more about "the US will", is that, all the countries that agree with the US or that were forced to agree (like Chile) became developed nations, nations to where people from the other countries flee to

[@avigailpekelman8239]

Tell that to libya

[@bouabdellahredha6494]

@@avigailpekelman8239 if they start to tell it to everyone they conquer and hurt they're going to make a list that will never end

[@iDontProgramInCpp]

0:12 *Romania is also a NATO member, since 2004.

[@msthing]

Love the political analyses in historical framing! More plz!

[@petterbirgersson4489]

I'm left leaning and I'm against NATO. Not because it's a community of capitalist (well roughly every country and every collaboration of countries is capitalist, it's unavoidable), neither because it poses a threat/provocation against Russia (well f*ck Putin and all that jazz...). My reason for being against NATO is that members of the alliance with a poor democracy record put pressure on the rest of the countries to change their domestic politics according to their wish. Which organizations that should be considered terrorists, which people who are "fit" to be cabinet members etc. Screw that! You shouldn't be put in a place where you have to choose between Putin or Erdoğan.

[@williamsherman1942]

You’ve got to be European don’t ya? Some people don’t seem to realize this, but Turkey was merely chosen because of it’s strategic position. Even at the time where the argument of letting Turkey in was happening Turkey had little to no democratic principles and had a lot of problems inside the country like rebellions etc. The main reason why Turkey joined was because of communists organizations which were supported by the Soviets had attacked Turkey for years and because they were simply scared of the Soviets. Turkey didn’t join for democracy or capitalism, they joined for protection. We need to keep Turkey in, even if Erdogan is a pain in the ass because it gives is the option to interfere in the middle east when needed.

[@halberggb3124]

"Aren't the left to be in favor of military armament?" Really thought out point right there.

[@himoffthequakeroatbox4320]

I don't recall him saying that. I'd have probably noticed, since it's barely a proper sentence.

[@hendrakurniawan3658]

russia want to joint nato and got rejected. basicly they are spartan in alexander age. keep them as boogeyman against greek alliaces

[@thewitheringproduction1761]

the difference is that spartans were isolationist and didnt invade 2 countries in the span of a decade. also russia is occupying a territory the size of england, when did spartans do that?

[@tengkudita3665]

I can see both arguments

[@uncinarynin]

I'm a citizen of the European Union and consider myself part of the left spectrum. I have long been critical of NATO as an anti-communist, american-led coalition. Yes, in the 1990s I was enthusiastic and thought that all military blocs should dissolve and I realize though that various countries are more than ever under Russian threat and it is natural to seek protection in an alliance. I think that on the long term NATO should develop into a coalition of equals and emphasize self-defense without threatening others. There should also be more efforts towards worldwide nuclear disarmament, something that started in the 1980s/90s but didn't continue as consequently as could be desired. Though Russia has, according to some, tried to get into NATO at some point, it seems like these advances weren't a sincere attempt to join a coalition of equals but rather an attempt to destroy it by joining and dominating it. Anyway NATO should be open (and not just anti-Russia but more like "protecting against any threat of invasion"). Who knows, maybe Russia or even China will join, after a regime change, but the initiative to that will have to come from within those countries.

[@cerebrofan]

You fail to realise that Russia once tried to join NATO, proving its purpose was anti Russia by default.

[@TheMacC117]

In curious at the first part of your post, that you were critical of NATO being American led and anti communist. That makes it sound like you believe anti communism is a bad thing?

[@Reivehn]

I'm glad you were able to see what NATO is at its core, Beyond all the past reasoning for the bloc's existence, it is first and foremost a unifier of nations and governments with the express purpose of mutual defence against would-be aggressors and also a channel of communication, co-operation and dialogue. As it's been said, What keeps law's enforced is by whatever is most effective at persuading people to abide, any organised group can exude influence and/or force to get what it wants or maintain what it has, be it rules, resources or information. One of the most effective methods is Violence, For an organisation with a monopoly on violence, or rather, the means to inflict violence is the one who can tell others that cannot contend how to behave. Similarly, A monopoly on information is also one of these keys of influence, withholding information, releasing it when it's most opportune or lying to to a target audience. Lastly you have Moral Code/Faith in a system, Which itself is a form of Indoctrination and is the most natural, it's "cultural norms" and "traditional expectations" but this isn't absolute and is only as effective as people are willing to accept it or to at least tow the line. Information, Faith and Force are the three different pillars that allow rules to be Taught, Maintained and Enforced. If a state or any other entity controls all three effectively, It will be very hard to rival internally and externally, Which is where different groups with a common vested interest in their protection should remember to be united in their efforts to uphold the common cause of self-determination and guarantees of aid in the case of great strife. In other words: "United we Stand, Divided we Fall."

[@uncinarynin]

@@TheMacC117 To me, a society emphasizing (economic) equality is a worthwhile goal, and that is what communism is originally about. Now the various ways it's been implemented all have serious flaws. But on a local scale communists can actually get useful results, look at Graz/Austria for example. Why some tankies today consider themselves part of the left while aligning with Putin who is perfectly fine with a bunch of cleptocratic oligarchs amassing obscene wealth while letting the rest of society fall behind, and will gladly send thousands into death to try to overthrow a democratically elected government abroad ... is a different story. Germany's left party "Die Linke" is currently destroying itself over an internal fight on where they stand regarding Putin, Nato, Ukraine and all this. Some of their proponents have actually more or less parroted the exact narrative propagated by the Kremlin.

[@TheMacC117]

@@uncinarynin A worthwhile goal, but the problem is every time one of these countries fell under the communism umbrella it led to Massive corruption and instability. Yes, A Lot more corruption than any of the NATO countries. And every one of them eventually collapsed (USSR) or changed directions (China). It's my limited understanding that the idea behind what Marks taught was that in order to get to communism, a country would have to go through socialism first; the idea being that a leading group of people could slowly steer their nation's people into a communal group where everyone supports each other. It sounds nice, except it isn't possible. NATO leaders knew that the inherent greed, selfishness, or a nicer term individualism of humans would prevent that. Furthermore, it would (and always has) led to that ruling group of people getting fat, rich, and drunk on the power they had over the 99% of the populace (the Russian oligarchs you mentioned, they exist because of far left-socialist practices). Comfortable as that was, no true efforts towards progressing to actual communism would actually take place, leaving said nation stuck in the authoritarian or totalitarian regimes they made for themselves. NATO leaders saw that, and snuffed it out. Except for China.

[@westrim]

Bringing up Libya as a catastrophe is hindsight revisionism. I remember very clearly that at the time intervention was decided on, Libyan forces were within miles of Benghazi with the clear and stated objective of taking the city by force and punishing it for rebelling against Gadaffi's rule. Tens of thousands of deaths were projected, to say nothing of other crimes. The intervention consisted almost entirely of airstrikes on military vehicles, allowing antigovernment forces to mop up at the infantry level. That's it. The intervention succeeded at what it set out to do. It's not NATO's fault that the Libyans settled on tribalism and score settling over basic civil governance, and aside from diplomatic services and some financial assistance, NATO didn't stay involved after the air campaign. Just like Ukraine, Libyans chose their fate regardless of the interests and desires of the western powers. They just made a different choice.

[@Tjalve70]

While I don't disagree with what you're saying, imagine what would have happened if this had been a country with a "west friendly" government. Are you sure NATO would have intervened then? The fact that Gadhafi was anti-western was most likely a very strong incentive for NATO to do what they did.

[@TJ-vh2ps]

That is a very European prospective. In the US, it is the far Right that is Anti-NATO, for the opposite reason: they want the US to be unfettered by international cooperation or organizations. To unilaterally act or not act as they wish. Both anti-NATO groups have opposing motivations but both would lead to a horrible outcome. Without NATO solidarity and assistance, Ukraine would have just been the appetizer.

[@imnotnotgameiacmaniac5327]

The far left in america is far more anti nato then the far left of europe.

[@JamesC785]

👍🏾👍

[@christopherg2347]

Whats up with the video quality? The video of the speaker is horribly low quality, even on 720p. I guess something went wrong during recording?

[@eVill420]

opposite reasoning to the far-right, but the exact same outcome.

[@lyxandrast0ttr0n1x8]

I’m a leftist and having an alliance of democracies against autocracies seems like an obviously good thing to me.

[@anguswaterhouse9255]

I agree, its the far left, the people who can't accept that the right does get a few things right, and we can't just fully ignore them.

[@avigailpekelman8239]

That seems to be an extremely simplistic viewpoint on the matter. There are several forms of democracy

[@kevinmcfarlane2752]

The problem is that the democracies are becoming ever more autocratic themselves. As examples, look what Trudeau and the Biden regime are doing, and wanting to do, domestically.

[@michaelpocci1876]

I’m a leftist too (social democrat) and I support NATO, it is an institution of great importance and without it, Putin could theoretically bomb the shit out of countries like Poland

[@olivers.7821]

There is a difference between left and far left. Far left is often undemocratic.

[@GnosticLombe]

I miss when tldr didn’t try to tell me what to think

[@jonathancardy9941]

There's also the issues of whether NATO is a defensive alliance or an offensive one. Ever since WW1 and probably before, there have been progressives who have thought defensive alliances can be good, but offensive alliances lead to war (pacifists would likely go a bit further). For most of its history NATO has been a defensive alliance, but under the younger George Bush things got a little blurred to put it mildly. Plus the issue of whether NATO is an alliance of democratic countries, or an alliance of the US's subordinates. Current undemocratic regimes in NATO include Turkey and Hungary. Then there's the issue of NATO as a front for the military industrial complex, encouraging members to spend excessive sums on the military. 2% of GDP across the whole of NATO is arguably excessive, and diverts money from more worthy causes.

[@mrgeorgeb0062]

2% is nothing compared to what a lot of these countries would have to spend without NATO

[@juanantoniogomezdelpulgarg2273]

I agree in everything except the 2% thing, european countries like germany spain italy even the uk don't have a really strong army and it is not enough to prevail their geopolitical interests, I mean, in the event of northen african countries attacking southern european countries, the europeans would be destroyed

[@jonathancardy9941]

@@juanantoniogomezdelpulgarg2273 If there was a substantial land border between Europe and North Africa then maybe tactics would need to be different. But the Med exists, and any army crossing it needs to consider sea and air power. Europe is in no danger of conventional invasion from the south.

[@EricZucchini]

that left-vs-right attitude chart about international organizations is just so anglo 😂 I'm not sure that works that well in other countries. I guess mostly when it's nationalist parties, but the traditional right usually has nothing fundamentally opposed to international organizations or have this somewhat "libertarian" desire for economic freedom.

[@therealmcgoy4968]

Define traditionalist right? Lol if you think libertarians are the traditional right

[@tidbit1877]

You're absolutely right, the right vs left paradigm is an American concept and even in the US it changes from decade to decade; for example, in this video they assert that the left is anti-capitalist, which it most certainly is not! We really need to move away from this nearly one dimensional thinking.

[@guneruribarren2953]

@@therealmcgoy4968 the tradicional right weren’t the kings and emperors? XD traditional leftists used to be the nowadays liberals. Funny how everything evolves

[@prometheus7387]

I think that while NATO is a necessary alliance, I still think it is a front for the US to assert military dominance. The Eastern European countries joined NATO simply because they had a terrible time under the USSR and if say, all those countries used to be part of another country like, say, Turkey, they wouldn't be as keen on joining NATO

[@prometheus7387]

TL;DR NATO isn't morally superior but it happens to be working in the interests of western signatories

[@anguswaterhouse9255]

@@prometheus7387 I'd say we were, before Bush sent us into Iraq.

[@Duck-wc9de]

@@anguswaterhouse9255 NATO was in Iraq? I belive that some countries that were part of NATO went into Iraq as a training mission for Iraquis, but article 5 wasn't activated.

[@anguswaterhouse9255]

@@Duck-wc9de UK, USA, Poland, and a couple others were all in Iraq. And that effected the standing of some of the largest NATO members (bar Germany and France) I still support that war though, because my mother was Kurdish and, well, you might want to look up what Saddam thought of her people. And what he did.

[@badluck5647]

@@anguswaterhouse9255 The US has military alliances with 50+ countries. You can't claim that every alliance was involved in every American conflict, because it simply isn't true. For example, the NATO command structure was not in use in Iraq like it was in Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks.

[@pk-wo3lh]

Hearing about NATO too often makes me feel like dead weight.

[@90stroll86]

some not many