Fuck Russian trash.
lol the tankies downvoted you
Lemmygrad, lemmy.ml and hexbear in shambles.
Oh hexbear too? I have noticed a lot of questionable posts coming from there
Yep. Just red through some of the comments on lemmy.ml for this news and compare it to the instance of the accounts. https://fedia.io/m/worldnews@lemmy.ml/t/597721/Sweden-officially-joins-NATO#comments
lol reminds me of when it was explained to me that Russia is an Asian country and if I supported Ukraine it meant I was racist against Asians
That doesn’t make any sense on absolutely every level. lol
They will then post an article talking about Russia “reclaiming” its Asian-ness and another that says that it was Asian all along. Then they will downvote you into negative double digits while explaining how horrible a person you are
PS I actually moved here after many months of it. Had no idea what “ml” meant. I joined there because it was the dev instance.
Yeah, that’s some fun logic. A equals B, and B equals C, so A equals C. But this isn’t math and subsets aren’t totality. So hating Russia for warmongering isn’t hating Asians for being Asian.
Yiikes the comments there are so toxic its crazy. Glad I’ve got those instances blocked.
Lemmygrad, lemmy.ml and hexbear
A trifecta of varying qualities of propaganda. An axis of artifice.
There are good people in Russia.
There are good people everywhere.
Doesn’t really change the fact that Russia, more or less in its current form, has been bullying its neighbours for half a millenia. Longer, if you count the Grand Duchy of Moscow as Russia.
Could be said the same for most Europen countries to be honest.
Start naming 😄 I wouldn’t say most. Britain, France, Prussia, Austro-Hungarian Empire, France and Russia had their little swingers club changing partners every few years or so, but there are more countries in Europe.
I’m from Latvia. Russian chauvinism is something I know of first hand. Most other European countries that I have been to have a different, more accepting vibe than the parts that are Russian influenced and manipulated.
So it really can’t be said about most European countries. Maybe historically, but definitely not currently.
I’d like to reitarate that there are good people everywhere. Part of my family is Russian and I like them. I have Russian friends. But it can’t be denied that as a state it’s goddamn awful and should disintegrate asap.
I don’t consider them to be Russian trash. Only Putin and his sympathizers.
It’s such a bizarre thing… Communism fell in Russia probably before many of these people were born. But the support the successor state to the Soviet Union, which is an authoritarian kleptocracy, because why? Nostalgia? Ignorance?
Tankies be weird.
russia was never communist.
I guess you would call Navalny tankie too
Fuck Zionist and pro-Putin trash instead!
Don’t be racist. Russian government is to blame, not their people who are constantly oppressed by their government. Russian people are the biggest victims in Ukranian war, lost more lives fighting for some idiot. Some successfully surrendered, but a lot of them are forced to fight and lost their innocent lives in all of this.
Russian people are the biggest victims in Ukranian war,
Whew lad
Most of the casulties are russian troops, are they not? They don’t join volonterily you know, they are forcefully conscripted.
You can’t claim to be the victim when you are the aggressor, even if that aggression is under force.
All those troops could just … not invade a sovereign nation. They could have a civil war instead of pushing their problems on their neighbouring countries. An equal amount of people would die, but not the ones that have nothing to do with it.
It sounds like you where never forcefully conscripted in a war. Difference is that they can hurt your family, this way you die in a war either way. If you are forced to kill, under threat of death or your family getting hurt, you are clearly a victim. Furthermore Russian people aren’t just ones that are still fighting in war, they are also their wifes and childeren that are losing their husbands and fathers. They are also Russians that surrended to Ukrainain rather then fight, not everyone can do that safely without their commenders stopping them or without Ukrainian troops killing them by mistake. They are also Russian people that killed their conscription officers. There are a lot of good russian people, some died as heroes fighting their governments. Some died as victims of the war on the battlefield not willing to shoot back at Ukrainan soliders, some just fought because they had to and died in the process. There are bad people everywhere, but there are good people too. Claiming all russians are bad is just racism.
Tell that to those raped and mutilated by those fucking victims of yours.
Oh wait, you outright dismissed their existence in order to… <checks notes>… not be racist.
I didn’t dismiss any victims. I can critique Israel’s genocide of Palestinians without being anti-semetic. I can critisize Russian genocide and rape of Ukranians without being racist towards Russians. People are not the armies that claim that fight for their interests.
Imagine people in the US electing Trump, then 10 years later writing the same thing.
Russian people are as much at fault.
Do you know what happened to Musolini? Where are the russian partisans?
Bunch of cowards.
They’re forced to fight, but not forced to commit atrocities and war crimes that they did.
“Russian people are the biggest victims” - fuck right off. Just fuck off.
Imagine people in the US electing Trump, then 10 years later writing the same thing.
I mean, I would kinda get that, no? It’s not as though most people in the US voted for trump last time. Not even counting the popular vote thing, right, which is still pretty important, but like, people who didn’t vote for whatever reason, even. Maybe that’s because they’re not exercising their right to democracy or what have you, and so it’s still their fault, idk. I guess you could include the clause of prisoners and former convicts, who aren’t allowed to vote. I guess my broader point is that, seeing as how kind of, horrendously stupid and undemocratic the elections are here in america, especially at the federal level, I would not really expect russia, and the russians to be any better off. I’d actually probably expect them to be much, much worse off, so I don’t think I’d feel comfortable blaming them for their political system.
I also don’t understand why it’s kind of a controversial stance to kind of, empathize with people that are conscripted into a war. I don’t think, really, over ukranians, right, but empathizing with them nonetheless, I don’t see why that’s controversial. It would be like saying that all americans were at fault for vietnam, which is kind of obviously an extremely simplified and even somewhat useless perspective to have, on the historical factors that were leading up to that war. The election processes that went into it, the economic factors, the henry kissinger shit, the public pushback that helped to end it. Certainly I wouldn’t blame the anti-war protestors or the people who voted against the powers that be for the war, they were clearly fighting against it. I don’t hear a lot about any organized grassroots resistance against the ukranian war in russia, I think probably more as a nature of my westernized news consumption, I’d assume, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was the case that there was some level of pushback against this war domestically, especially given the history of cross-pollination and cultural exchange between the two regions.
I’m also not sure that like, attributing war crimes and atrocities to a whole population or to the whole of conscripted soldiers is really a great thing to do, that strikes me as kind of xenophobic. I’ve seen that same sort of propaganda spouted about almost every enemy america has faced in the middle east, both true and untrue. Unless their military doctrine or military culture has kind of a demonstrated slant towards those kinds of things, then I feel pretty questionable about it. Those sorts of controversies don’t serve much to sort of, shed actual light on the core problems there, which is that there’s a war happening in the first place. I’m also kind of skeptical that they would serve to galvanize anti-war support, thus, serving to end the war, but I’d be more willing to be convinced of that.
In any case I’m not going to blame the russian people for not having a mass revolution or well organized resistance movement right this moment, and for not overthrowing their government, just as I wouldn’t don’t blame americans for the same thing. I don’t think that’s a particularly unreasonable stance to have, I think it’s realistic.
So are US people to blame for Biden supporting genocide in Israel? Or have they just voted for what they saw as lesser evil. You have to understand that Navalny, has started as a real neo-nazzi. Talking about killing all the muslims in the area. It is the same thing in every country. There are no real democracies in the World, people have to vote for the lesser of evils, or at least that is what they see as the only option.
Supporting genocide in Israel? Am I talking to ChatGPT? This sounds like random garbage words assembled as sentences.
What? What don’t you understand in that sentence? Are you saying there is no genocide in Israel? Or that Biden is not supporting it? Because both are easily provable.
I made a very obvious counterpoint that citizens of the US are not to blame for their presidents actions, just like the citizens of Russia. You can’t have it both ways.
removed by mod
Both of you seem wrong ngl. It’s like two polar opposites.
Dude, that is not fair. Israel is taking land from Palestine, it is Isreal controlled land now and that is just semantics and you know it. The point is that Isreal is particiapting in genocide and Bidan has sidestepped congress to send them weapons. That is both undemoctratic and is support of genocide.
Unless you’re implying that Gaza is a part of Israel, which truly would be a pretty bold claim that not even Netanyahu makes, I’m pretty sure not even you think that there’s a genocide in Israel.
These are semantics that have nothing to do with the point as was making. The point was that the genocide was happening and that Israel government is doing it with the support of the US government.
So Poutine wanted to weaken NATO, ends up adding countries, including one that has been neutral for an incredibly long time.
Sweden has a strong military industry too and Finnland is literally right at Russia’s border. Putin is a master strategist.
Dude really read a history book about Hitler fighting a one front war and somehow turning it into a three front war and said “Hold my beer”
Your comment reminded me of this video, highly worth a watch : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=si9Phc9ArpU
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://www.piped.video/watch?v=si9Phc9ArpU
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
deleted by creator
Your spellcheck outed you as a Canadian
Side note, this is also the French spelling of Putin. So you can eat Poutine while being mad at Poutine (I’ll let you guess which is which, unless you’re a cannibal then everything goes TBF).
Sorry, french changes the spelling of proper nouns?
The last name of the president of Russia is Пу́тин. Since people can’t read that without knowing Cyrillic, we need a way to map Cyrillic to the Latin alphabet. However, neither Cyrillic nor Latin script have universal pronunciations: the phonetic value of letters change depending on the language. This leads to the romanization of a name being different depending what the source and target language is. Пу́тин is Putin for Russian-to-English, but Poutine for Russian-to-French. They’re both equally correct, and neither is a change from the other.
I feel like this is advanced trollery, as “poutine” is a French Canadian word, not French French, and pronounced quite differently than Putin.
So does English, in Russian Putin’s name is Путин.
Yep, especially when they come from different alphabets. But we used to do it for English names too (mostly medieval ones though).
I thought it was “putain”
Nah, that is actually a slang for sex workers, who do not deserve to be associated with Putin.
Yeah, and it made me kinda hungry too…
Cheese curds have nothing to do with this.
You’re right, at least cheese curds get thrown out when the go bad. Kinda like what Putin does with critics.
[Pours hot gravy on Putin] “A crown for King.”
Cheese curds go bad? I guess I never let them last long enough to find out.
I never knew the Russian president was actually a Canadian dish in disguise.
In fact, come to think of it, why don’t the Russians simply eat him? If he’s that delicious then surely they gotta dig in.
Yeah, he is either stupid or desperate. It does worry me how centralized power balance in the World has become over US controlling most of the conflicts and countries in the World.
Yeah, he is either stupid or desperate.
I’ll pick the middle option: Putin is high on his own supply.
The man made it clear that dissent will be met with swift and gruesome consequences. This is a sure-fire recipe for surrounding yourself with yes-men that are not smart enough to get the hell out. And BTW, that’s always a career where everyone’s last promotion is “pavement inspector”, and training starts immediately at an open 6th floor window. So there’s some cocky, can’t-guage-risk-for-a-damn people mixed in there too. The result is a bunch of decisions from the head-of-state that only make sense between those in his court, and fail to hold up to scrutiny outside those walls.
How is the US controlling conflicts and countries?
By CIA coups, puppet governments, military funding, weapon supplies to insurgents or to the governments, sanctions, etc.
These are not arguments. It is a list of fun buzzwords. Do you have anything specific or concrete to talk about? Am I talking to ChatGPT? I need to know! Are you my skynet daddy?
Good. Sweden has very strong military capabilities with their Total Defense strategy. They also have very advanced weapons development and a huge defense industry, including their Gripen fighter jets. NATO got a lot stronger today.
As a Swede I often find myself thankful we don’t have the military brainwashing the US has, even though we have a strong military for such a small country. The army stuff is there if you look but if you don’t care you don’t notice it much, if at all. I’m not invested enough to have a really informed opinion about us joining NATO. But from what I know it’ll be a good thing, just being able to help countries more that need it is enough of a reason IMO.
NATO was originally founded so that we’d stop invading each other, which should still hold true today.
I like to think of most developed nations as young adults. All of us are supposed to be mature, which means no more war. We can just talk about things like responsible adults.
Sadly, some of these younger fucks still haven’t grasped the concept of “don’t be an idiot”, and we now need NATO for a strong message of “no, you’re not going to touch us, there will be consequences”. It’s a sad thing that we still need to do so, but I’d rather have a large group of friends that I’m sure will have my back if someone would start shit.
So yes, Sweden joining NATO is a good thing. If anything it will lead to better cooperation and coordination between our countries. Not just in the event of war, but just sharing defense resources and intelligence as well. But the best argument is that we just like you Swedes, and we want to keep hanging out together.
You are confusing NATO and UN. UN was founded so that we’d stop invading each other.
NATO was, too. It’s like nuclear weapons. Deterrence. Not meant to be used, but it’s a stabilizer.
That’s why Trump’s words are so harmful. It undermines the deterrence value and the trust. Even though the US is the only country that has ever needed to activate Article 5, after 911. But he probably doesn’t even know that.
NATO formed as a check on the threat to capitalism posed by the Soviet Union.
Now it’s a check on the threat of the kleptocracy that is the Russian Federation.
As a Finn, I thought that joining Nato was the last nail in the coffin. After several decades of crawling towards it, we’re finally a western civilized country now.
You swedes were there already for historical reasons though, but very nice to have you in the same military alliance.
Unless you happen to be Russian or some other power seeking to use military aggression, or the threat there of, against Europe or North America, NATO expansion is a good thing for all parties. The larger the alliance, the more viewpoints, training and speciality each nation can provide and there is less gap for something to get through. Ukraine is a perfect example of why this should have happened a long time ago but political will wasn’t there.
Sweden has a lot to offer NATO and vice versa, its certainly self sufficient for its military needs but with the defense guarantee it can now afford to diversity its military a bit more than its used to with not everyone and everything needing to adhere to a total defense doctrine. There won’t be any Swedish Expeditionary Forces but Sweden does have some rather unique experience and training it can exchange with its western neighbors and possible get some technology exchange and other material assistance to help shore up the northern borders of NATO. The Baltic Sea becoming a NATO lake just a bonus now if Russia tries to start or continue its usual shit.
deleted by creator
This just means that Sweden will have send their troops to fight wars in middle east for oil companies. Russia is hardly capable of attacking Ukraine that is right next to it and has some local support of some Russian citizens. They would never make it to Sweden in the next 100 years. But a lot of lives will be lost in the Middle East in that time.
isn’t NATO a defensive treaty? which would mean no obligation to participate in actions of aggression?
It absolutely is; this guy is either an idiot or deliberately misleading.
Article V has been invoked exactly one time, by the United States after the September 11 attacks. The direct outcomes of this were two operations: Operation Eagle Assist, where NATO forces helped patrol and monitor US airspace in the immediate months after 9/11, and Operation Active Endeavour, a maritime operation where NATO ships patrolled and secured shipping lines in the Mediterranean. NATO itself was not directly involved under Article V in the Iraq invasion, though some members did voluntarily participate (hence Bush’s “coalition of the willing”).
There have been NATO operations in the Middle East under Article IV invoked by Turkey, which mandates only military consultation from members, not direct intervention, though they may voluntarily participate if they want. Likewise, NATO was involved in Afghanistan (which, it should be noted, is not in the Middle East) and Libya in a similar voluntary capacity. It should be noted that, despite not being a member, Sweden did participate in NATO operations in Afghanistan, voluntarily.
Sweden is only obligated to participate in military action if a member state is actively attacked. Otherwise, it’s able to voluntarily participate in other NATO operations, as it has already done in the past. That NATO is a tightly organized and coordinated international military organization makes it really useful for large international operations - generally directed by the UN - but outside of defensive invocations of Article V, these are strictly optional, and members very much have refused to participate in American-led operations that they don’t agree with (see Iraq).
Only on paper. In practice there are many financial and military infulence that US gets when a country joins NATO that result in joining wars in Middle East.
Such as when America tried to lead everyone into a predictably disastrous invasion of Iraq, resulting in most of Europe telling us to fuck off?
Truly, the ‘infulence’ of America is mighty and all must tremble before it.
They actually did get Europe involved https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_Training_Mission_–_Iraq#Other_NATO_Contributions Germany,France,Spain,Poland,Norway all of them ended up training armies for US oil companies invasions. Influence is there.
This was all after the invasion to support the fledgling new Iraqi government.
If ten trainers from Norway training the Iraqi military to resist terrorist attacks is your idea of an example of gross western imperialism, you’ll have to forgive me for not being hugely convinced.
What’s your source on that?
If none go spread your propaganda somewhere else, you’re either a russian bot or a sympathiser. Either way you will find no friends here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO#Military_operations All of NATO wars were in non-NATO countries, all where offensive invasitions. They fight in MIddle East for oil companies. I do not sympathize with Russian government, they are just as bad when given the chance. But NATO is scarier. Calling people to support Russia when they critisize your government is insane.
And again, the only mandatory after Article V have been monitoring and patrolling US airspace for a few months after 9/11 and some maritime operations in the Mediterranean to protect shipping and prevent terrorism and smuggling. All those other NATO operations were voluntary, and other NATO countries have happily told the US to fuck off when they don’t want to be involved.
Also, Sweden, despite not being in NATO, also participated in operations in Afghanistan. Your premise that being in NATO necessarily causes you to be involuntarily dragged into gallivanting around the Middle East is simply false. Other nations have autonomy and agency, actually. Not everything is about America.
Just an FYI. Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
NATO just got a little Sweder
Plis stop dö fajting.
But a mööse bit my sister.
Deth tu mööse! Joyna NATO.
deleted by creator
Fucking Putin
Yes. Also blame the members of the security council for preventing the UN being effective in solving global conflicts. Ideally, NATO wouldn’t be necessary
Disagree. UN is a diplomacy tool, NATO is a defense organization. Entirely different goals, and if UN was a defense organization something else would have filled the void for diplomacy and you’d say UN wouldn’t be necessary.
You don’t play diplomacy with your friends. And you cannot get your enemies to sit down if you’re aiming a gun at them. The UN not having teeth is the point.
You’ve never heard of UN peacekeepers?
Yeah, not defense.
Sigh. You’re missing my point
Nah they addressed it. You missed their point.
Do you know what a UN peacekeeper is?
They only come into play after a ceasefire has been negotiated. When there’s countries fighting a war they tend not trust each other. When you make an agreement to keep a demilitarized area between adversaries they tend not to trust the other to not secretly send their military into that area and launch a surprise attack.
So you put peacekeepers in that area to report to everyone if either side is breaking the ceasefire agreement. Note they aren’t there to enforce the ceasefire, they are there as a trusted third party to monitor and report on both sides.
Don’t get me wrong, peacekeepers are a very important in diplomacy. They make it more likely that countries that distrust one another will agree to peace.
But peacekeepers aren’t a fighting force. If a country is determined to attack another, they will attack even if there’s peacekeepers between them. This has happened before and the peacekeepers will report on the attacker breaking the ceasefire agreement and leave. War still happens even with the presence, alliances are still necessary to remove the incentive to go to war.
Not quite the point I was making but I shouldn’t have got sidetracked into talking about peacekeepers. The point I was trying to make (badly, apparantly) is that UN would be more able to bring pressure to bare against belugerent states if the security council didn’t have such an extreme veto. All that stuff occurs before you get to the point of defending against an invader
the un and nato serve two very different and distinct purposes though.
Yes?
Yeeeaahh, but this is a slightly different beast. Even if the UN had fangs ( you’re right there), we’re talking about a nuclear dictatorship with visions of conquest here.
I think you might be reading something into my comment that wasn’t there. Or I didn’t intend, at least. In no way am I trying to minimise Putin’s evil behaviour. The point I was trying to make is that NATO shouldn’t be necessary. The UN should be capable of keeping everyone safe. I’m not anti NATO nor anti UN thou.
I think this haterred towards Putin blinded most of us to let governments increase their authorariansim. Like in US after 9/11. Of course Putin is dangerous, but he can’t even win a war in a small country right next to his. Lost more troops then Ukraine. Meanwhile NATO expansion across the World and US influance is truely scary and unprecedented. Most of the wars in World are started by NATO counties and here we don’t hear about is as much.
All the invasions of Iran, Afganistan, Vietnam, Syria, etc where unjustfied invasions just like Ukraine and in case of Palestine, far worse. Yet, media successfully is pointing our focus on a single war in Ukraine where Russia has made no advencments and is clearly inferior military power. It reminds me of 9/11, when fear from a small group of terrorist gave the government power to spy on all of its citizens, run torture camp in Guantanamo and remove citizens rights one by one.
Ah, yes, the scary defense-only alliance. Purely by design it doesn’t have the lawful capacity to do any of the things you said, and single members (US or UK) don’t represent it.
Ah yes, no advancements in Ukraine where 1/3 of the country is under occupier control and in entrenched positions.
In is defensive only on paper. In reality it is NATO weapons that supply wars in Middle East. Joining NATO isn’t just mutual defense, you need to sign a lot of other requirements that inevitably gets you under strong influance of US military and finances. Check out military intervantions of NATO, they are all offensive, no one ever attacked a NATO country, they are too strong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO#Military_operations None of these counties they invaded where part of NATO, Iraq, Afganistan, Kosovo, Bosina, Libya.
Laws don’t matter when you have the military power. Laws only apply to the weak. Powerful countires (and people) don’t protect them selves with laws, since they have the military. When Assange and Manning published US war crimes, militry officials didnt go to jails, but they, whistlblowers and journalists did. Don’t fall for the laws for a second, they don’t apply to them.
You are not wrong that a lot of shady things can happen with military power. It is a fine general statement.
But with regards to NATO, I think you are misinformed (or mixed up?). If all those were invasions (and NATO is so strong), I don’t see how any of these countries could be independent countries now.
They are not independent, that is the point. NATO military is still present in most of them or have puppet governments or are still at war.
Source?
There is this wikipedia article with a list of all the countires in the world with their military presence outside of their countries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_overseas_military_bases You can google for each of these countries as well, such as France and their presence in Africa, as well as other “past”-colonial forces, US with their presence in Kosovo, Turkey with their presence in a lot of Balkan countries (also previous colonies of Ottoman empire). There is a lot of countries in the World that where past colonies that never got rid completly of their imperialist rulers. In fact during cold war they made an alliance just for that, that is where the term third world comes from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World Obviously imperialist didn’t like that and the media propaganda changed the meaning of that term to the “developing country” to excuse them staying there while they “develop”. Never actually leaving of course.
Russian weapons supply a lot of wars in the Middle East too. Russia funded the 10/7 Hamas attack. Russia gassed and bombed a lot of civilians in Syria. Russian mercenaries are keeping the civil war going in Libya, as well as couping lots of governments across African countries in the past year
I am not defending Russia. They do horrible things as well, but it is no excuse for our governments to do these things too. And they do it a lot more. As for Russia funding Hamas attack, that just sounds like insane propaganda, sorry. Israel government funded Hamas and let 10/7 happen on purpose to justify genocide, they even brag about it.
As for Russia funding Hamas attack, that just sounds like insane propaganda, sorry.
Your posts on the matter reads like insane propaganda as well.
Iraq, Afganistan
The US called on NATO following an attack on them. The idea was to fight those who had attacked the US, which is in the purview of a defensive alliance. Of course that didn’t end up being the reality because the bush admin lied about Iraq.
Kosovo, Bosina
This was not defensive, you’re correct. But it was instead to stop a genocide of Muslim people by Serbia. Kosovo exists because of NATO involving themselves to stop genocide.
Libya.
This was a UN coalition to aid rebel groups.
Well if you claim that you are attacked by “Terrorism” and you declare war on it, you can make any invasion a defensive action. That is my point, in theory it is defensive, but they can twist it any way they want to make it offensive. Also if you go around the World claiming you are there to stop a genocide (ironically while funding a genocide yourself) just so you can send your army there, than you have no reason for CIA not to just finance some genocidal maniacs on one side to justify you going in there to “save” them (like Israel funded Hamas, and HIlary funded Trump). This is not even legally clean, just ignoring the laws when they don’t suit your interests.
I think this haterred towards Putin blinded most of us to let governments increase their authorariansim.
Don’t you think this haterred towards Putin caused by increasing authorariansim of my country’s government? Because Putin is fucking head of it.
Of course Putin is dangerous, but he can’t even win a war in a small country right next to his.
I don’t know what is (not) concerning to you, but for me Good Uncle Voenkom that will send me to die in trenches for Stability™ of Putin’s yachts is concerning enough.
Stay safe comrade. The rest of the world prays that the Russian people will know freedom rather than authoritarianism.
Thank you
Because Putin is fucking head of it.
Thank you for taking a risk by posting here and speaking truth to power. People like you give me hope.
Your people are Putin’s first victims. I hope we’ll one day have cooperation and peace between Russia and the West, as proper friendly neighbors. You guys deserve so much better than Putin.
Thank you for kind words
You’re more than welcome.
In what way has the Russian Invasion of Ukraine led to more authoritarianism among NATO member states?
This is so lazy.
The irony.
Did you fall asleep or get bored writing the rest of your sentence?
No I find that perfection is not when you have nothing more to add, but when there’s nothing left to take away.
It is in regards to this article that we are talking about these things. NATO membership grew after this Russian invasion. Even from countries that are under no obvious imidiate danger.
That is not authoritarianism
All neighbours of a country that is interested in invading their neighbours are in immediate danger
Since when is Sweden a neibour of Russia?
??? Land bordering one another and neighbors are not the same thing.
Then anyone can be a neighbor.
Not a direct neighbour, but they’re in the neighbourhood that is the Baltic Sea.
Russia is not known for their naval invasions.
(͡•_ ͡• )
There’s a difference between NATO countries and NATO the organisation.
The United States would be going around the world starting wars regardless of whether it’s in NATO or not. Got to feed that industrial military complex
removed by mod
I don’t know what their deal is exactly (and they clearly have an agenda), but do you really think Lemmy is big enough to be a target for paid actors?
Send people to all corners of the Internet to sow your pro-Russian stance. And if not paid, I would say a Putin fan, someone being threatened by the Russian government, or just a troll. Take your pick. All are possible.
I think Putin is horrible, I never said otherwise, not a fan. And a troll doesn’t post sources, you however are a troll. You just call everyone who critiques NATO a Russian bot. You are either a troll or completly insane
-
Never called you a bot.
-
You have no link to a source in the thread I was replying to.
-
Anyone who looks at the things Putin has done in the last two years and thinks that NATO is worse is the one who is insane.
-
Targeting a smaller, receptive audience is actually better than going after larger and more diverse ones. With the later you’re more likely to get called out for your bullshit.
The former is more likely to listen, and a small echo-chamber will eliminate dissidents. That relatively small core group will gladly modify the message to better appeal to the local/culture they belong to, and spread it wide-and-far while obscuring the original source.
It’s a highly effective strategy: look at Qanon. It started on 8chan of all places, with a tiny userbase behind it.
Of course no one is paid to post on lemmy, this person is a lunatic that thinks anyone who critisizes their own government must be a Russian spy.
Removed under rule 5, you’re free to attack their content, but not them personally.
“Rule 5: Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (perjorative, perjorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (perjorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!”
Why did you remove my comment and not the one where the poster called me insane?
One got reported, the other didn’t. If I had seen it, I would have removed it too.
Fine, I accept that, but what exactly did I say that caused the post to be removed? All I said was he was probably a paid posted. How is that not being civil?
removed by mod
But they also influence NATO organizations through various requirements of joining the NATO so that in the practice, they are involved. NATO as an organization has participated in mmultiple invasitions around the World, it is on the Wikipedia page. All of their military involvements where in non-NATO countries. Nobody ever attacked a NATO country, they never did a defensive war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO#Military_operations
they never did a defensive war
Great success then.
Only non-Nato countries have to fight defensive wars. Thanks for convincing me of NATOs effectiveness
I never said NATO is not effective defensive strategy for the government, just that it is effective offensive strategy as well. However this only applies to the government, not the people. Troops are sent to die in these offensive wars, while otherwise they would be safe at home. Don’t spin this as an opposite claim that all non-NATO countries end up in a war. Some of the countries now in NATO where invaded by NATO first and then forced to join. That is like saying surrendering is safer then being nutral, bacause they can’t attack you if you are already surrendered.
NATO does not force countries to join. There’s an application process. You’re spouting literal Russian propaganda.
A country that is attacked by NATO doesn’t join it after 15-20 years with their populations support. They fund the politicians that are pro-NATO and get them to join it without the support of the people. It is what actually happened in places like Montenegro. Just beacuse it is horrible, don’t assume it is not true. As for blaming me of spreading a russian propaganda, beacuse of letting you know that we have part in impersialistic regimes, I have a book for you.
No country has ever been forced to join NATO. a country has to apply to join and a defensive alliance only works if all members are willing
They are made to be willing by funding politicains that secretly support it. When they get in power, they join without the support of their people. CIA has a long history of medeling in elections and this statement that it is willing is of course manufactured, as most of the democratic processes are.
So so dangerous to have a defense alliance. What is this world coming to.
Defense alliance that invades countries in middle east.
You are confusing members (the US) doing their own thing, with the organization.
Organization can’t be better then it’s members that are controlling it.
Whoops, you admitted the organization and the members are different! Lol. Ok really ciao.
You clearly see this as a game. You know exactly what I said and you are running away from it, just to have some kind of play of semantics like that somehow communicates some greater point. I really have no idea what is the point of this comment of yours.
All the invasions of Iran, Afganistan, Vietnam, Syria, etc where unjustfied invasions
- The US has never invaded Iran
- Afganistan was completely justified; the US could not let 9/11 go. Few countries in the world disputed this at the time, even among those unfriendly to the US. You can certainly criticize how it played out–I sure as hell do.
- Vietnam, yeah, not going to argue there
- Syria was a complex 13 way clusterfuck. We supported a specific side against another specific side, mostly with material and air support, and some limited ground support. It’s not exactly an invasion, but this is certainly another place where it’s more about how it played out than the support in itself.
Maybe he meant Iraq? I think Afghanistan taught us a lesson in what we’ve become. We were a country that could bomb another into the ground, but then rebuild it into a functional society. Regardless of the morals of that, japan and south korea are functional if unhappy. Unhappiness describes life, but I feel like the contracting on top of contacting and the line goes up profit obsession infected out zeitgeist so deeply, we are no longer capable of rebuilding what we destroy.
Maybe did mean Iraq, but I’m not about to give a russiabot the benefit of doubt.
I did mean Iraq. I am not a russian bot simply because I critisize our governments.
If you’re called a Russian bot so often that you need to have a prepared meme response, I feel like it doesn’t matter if you are or are not a Russian propagandist.
The cool thing about bad faith propoganda is that eventually, you trick dumb people into repeating it.
Just look at COVID.
It does matter if it is my honest opinion or if I was just wrongfully accused. One would be a critique of me, another is a critique on the propaganda that anyone who disagrees with people in power must be a KGB agent.
Eh I don’t think we failed at nation building in Afghanistan because we’re incapable of it, but because we didn’t take the time to understand Afghan society and we weren’t putting enough resources towards construction.
I did mean Iraq, but Iran is not much better. US staged a coup in Iran to get a puppet government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d’état#Release_of_U.S._government_records_and_official_acknowledgement Afganistan is not justified, you don’t invade an entire country because of a terroist attack. It was an excuse, just like the Patriot Act for more imperisalism and antidemocratic actions. Calling things invasions are semantics, more important is the bigger picture. US has huge influnace in the region thorug coups and military invasions.
Afganistan is not justified, you don’t invade an entire country because of a terroist attack.
You do when that country’s leadership is deliberately giving those terrorists a base. Again, few other countries at the time disputed this.
That is like saying it is justifed to bomb New York because Biden is helping Israel in their genocide. People are not their governments, going to war for revenge is cruel.
Not really. More like if there was a terrorist base in the US that was being used to bomb Gaza directly and the US was giving them money and equipment to do it.
Well they are giving them money and equipement to do it. The only difference is that isntead of one attack it is complete genocide of people and the fact that the base is not in US but in Isreal. But the support is the same and the crime is even greater. There is no sense to blame Afganistan for 9/11 and not US for genocide.
NATO did not invade Iraq, the US did. You are conflating things.
NATO is heavily influenced by US. When they ask other countries to join, they wear a NATO hat, when they invade other countries they where their counturies independent hats that just so happens to be in NATO.
Oops you admit they are not the same, but try to confuse the issue with “influence”. Followed by more with “hat” which is lol worthy. NATO did not invade Iraq. The US did.
Something tells me you’re trying to be intentionally obtuse trying to conflate everything so ciao
The current winner in the Middle East is Russia
Since they are allowed to support the killing of civilians and suppression of rights they have Iran, Iraq, and Syria
You can see how hard it is for the US to even have a foothold there with the Israel conflict. Which they are forced to support because of the above
US has far more influence in Middle Easst then Russia. Russia didn’t win anything in Middle East. US has control of Saudi Arabia and Israel quite famously. Most other governments where once funded by the CIA as well.
Such control of SA that they murdered Khashoggi with no reprisal and not only is SA China’s biggest supplier of oil but they also have nuclear agreements
Iraq was bad so let’s let Russia annex any bit of Europe it wants. Checks out. I was vehemently opposed to Iraq. This is not Iraq. Not all wars are the same
I never said we should let Russia annex anything, you are assuming that because I am against NATO expansion that I am pro Russia.
No. I’m not assuming youre pro Russia. I think that you think that Russia is militarily impotent, given that you said as much. And that is on my opinion, wrong: see Crimea, Georgia, Ossetia, Moldova amongst others. Absent NATO, they’ve been invading and occupying neighbours quite happily. There’s a demonstrable threat to which NATO is a demonstrable defense
Yeah but USA would have done all that with or with out NATO.
True. I am just saying that NATO is helping them and they are using this as an excuse to get more countries into NATO to help them with their wars.
Lmfao
Can you elaborate?
Putin doesn’t want to win. And actually pretty much everyone benefits from this long standing conflicts. Except for Ukrainians and some dirt poor African nations.
Yeah, I wouldn’t be surprised. Regular people are always the ones that suffer, on both sides, while for the politicians it is just about profit.
I don’t think this deserves the attack, guy speaks their mind, perhaps not from the most knowledgeable position, but I think it’s valid nonetheless. There are a lot of arguments being made without really being arguments, more like spoken worries, and I agree with their trepidation, I feel kind of the same way, in that I am wary of the future and not as expediently joyous over the occasion so to speak.
Also, I felt like when the
CEOPrime Minister of Sweden appeared in the House for the State of the Union address to standing ovations felt like we were bringing water and dirt before Xerxes. A half demented, half man half werewolf Xerxes, I have a conspiracy theory that Biden and Trump are the same person. Make of it what you will, the list of US atrocities committed across the world and our common history is a long and dire read, and only seems to get longer every year.I’m glad to know that if “someone” invades Sweden the whole planet will go down in a nuclear holocaust, as a deterrent you know, but at the same time we’re ironically posed before a problem common to Americans and Swedes alike- when it comes to our choices it’s slim pickings.
Putin: If anyone joins NATO there will be dire consequences!
Sweden: Du är inte lika stark som du luktar dumjävel
Have to add a funny FU to Putin that I saw. Yesterday, a B 52, and a B1B did a flyover of Stockholm escorted by Swedish Gripens
I went through to the trouble of translating that, and it was worth it.
deleted by creator
Psychiatry. You need it.
Not Post WWII, it’s Post Napoleon neutrality, the 6th coalition was the last hurrah of Swedish involvement in continental affairs, and thus the beginning of their extended neutrality in such affairs.
deleted by creator
If you tried to look like you need to visit psychiatrist, you did it well enough
So – pure curiosity… Which countries could yet still potentially join NATO.
Switzerland doesn’t join anything ever, so it’s the dark horse. But since everything is done by referendum there, it could change on a dime if the public demanded it.
Austria literally has it in their constitution that they aren’t allowed – but in theory they could change their constitution (unlikely).
Moldova has the whole Transnistria incentive – but NATO would be shy about that one, because that could potentially immediately put them in hot conflict. However, suppose they backdoored their way in by creating a union with Romania (not impossible, but complicated).
Ireland has been neutral forever – but the public support for Ukraine is extremely high. So they might even be possible. Higher than Switzerland anyway ;)
Bosnia and Herzegovina is sort of a special case where they’re sort of partially engaged already.
Serbia is extremely unlikely while they continue to be extremely contemptuous of everyone. That’s fine. Although Kosovo is sort of under NATO protection.
In theory, Georgia or Armenia would be candidates, but Turkey would pooh-pooh Armenia right away, and Georgia has contested territory.
In order of odds, I wager: Ireland, Moldova (via Romania), Georgia+Ukraine (in that order chronologically).
I’m interested in Ireland too, especially in the next few years as the reunification party is resurgent
Ireland has no chance, people here are extremely pro neutrality to the point there were protests when American Airforce jets refueled here. It’s not a case of alignment, it’s that nobody wants to get involved in any sort of conflict.
That was a very long time ago unless I’ve missed something more recent? (Genuine question) Personally think it’s time to re-examine our neutrality
It feels wrong not to support Ukraine militarily.
You’re all very neutral, until it comes to throwing an Englishman in the sea - LAI-DEE-DAI-DEE-DEE!!!
Hi-dilly-hi…hi-dilly-ho…over the side of the boat you go!
Nah we’re all friendly now for the most part. Sporting events excluded naturally where fervent, screaming nationalism from the Irish comes in and the English wonder why we are so angry at them. :D
There was a lot of backlash in the last few months when Leo Varadkar attended a defense conference which was mostly NATO members. He was forced to state that Ireland will not join any military alliance whatsoever. I do agree that it feels wrong to not support countries that realistically we’re aligned with but the Irish military is in such a state that if we tried I’d expect Ukraine to actually donate equipment to us instead
A reunified Ireland could benefit from being in NATO in case England loses their God damn minds and tried to take them back at some point in the future, but I guess those days are over.
Yeah, those days are gone thankfully. Also it would be a mistake of epic proportions to try and subjugate the Irish one last time tbh. Epic proportions.
Don’t fearmonger people just so they can join some wars in the middle east for oil companies. They are under no threat and have only to lose.
To be fair, Ireland doesn’t have the resources or population to be involved in a continental conflict in a impactful way. Getting involved in a war you might not win and might result in the end of your small nation isn’t normally a good idea.
I don’t believe nato could lose a war with Russia, but I don’t blame Ireland for not wanting to risk it
If Russia somehow won a war against NATO and took over all the European NATO countries, which is the vast majority of Europe, what would prevent them from just taking over the leftover bits at that point?
Yeah neutrality is worthless at that point. Sure Hitler wasn’t going to stop with the UK. We were definitely next.
The main advantage it has given us has been as a trusted UN peacekeeper where the Irish Defence Forces have been seen as a neutral third part to conflict and they have done and continue to do solid work abroad in that regard.
Doesn’t Ireland already have defensive pact status with a bunch of NATO members through the EU? If your fellow EU states are being attacked, can you really stay out?
I was surprised to learn Ireland is not in Nato. They should obviously join asap.
Have you seen their support of Palestinians? They’ll never join NATO
Wait, is NATO Zionist or something? Did I miss the memo?
Most member states have been in support of Israel. Most egregious being US and Germany, but France is ranking high. Supporting Israel is quite zionist in my opinion
Lol
Yes. Israel fully depends on US for weapons and finances. Just like NATO. So naturally US government uses both for the same purpose of controlling oil in the middle east.
I have not. In what way do they support Palestine?
The Irish express solidarity on a regular basis. The anticolonial struggle against the English has made them way closer to Palestinians and other colonized peoples than the rest of Europe.
US has authority in Israel and NATO, so they can make both of them fight in these wars that benefit their oil companies. So NATO and Israel are part of the same miltiary force, only run by different puppet governments.
Basically any country that was a previous Russian/Soviet satellite and are not interested in being one anymore.
Ukraine
Personally, I see no reason why ever nation couldn’t join NATO at some point.
I expect “clever” dipshits to be like “NORTH ATLANTIC”, though.
Nothing clever needs to be invoked. It’s baked into the text of the treaty. Article 5 is what’s invoked to bring the whole alliance together to defend against an attack on any one member. However, Article 6 limits Article 5 to attacks within Europe, North America, Turkey, and islands in the Atlantic north of the Tropic of Cancer. Strictly speaking, even an attack on Hawaii wouldn’t invoke it.
I guess countries outside that area could join, but without a change to the treaty, the key clause in the whole thing wouldn’t apply to them.
We got one!
but without a change to the treaty
If only there was some way to address this. I guess we should just start a new alliance if we ever want to accept people outside of the North Atlantic.
Changing that treaty is not going to be easy. There are a lot of parties involved.
Edit: as to your second sentence, there are some thoughts about making a NATO-equivalent for the Pacific.
Maybe they don’t want to die in middle east for US oil companies.
You got downvoted but you’re not wrong. NATO is getting good PR at the moment because of Ukraine, but the invasion of Iraq and Libya are examples of how god-awful NATO is. Iraq was invaded out of trumped up accusations but the real reason is gaining access to Iraqi oil. I remember it was France and UK who were antsy to invade Libya while US refused initially but eventually caved in. Look at the long term implications of such invasions. ISIS sprung up, and Libya is in a civil war causing thousands of refugees which Europe absorbed.
NATO is getting good image at the moment because of recency bias
NATO didn’t participate in the invasion of Iraq, so what exactly are you talking about?
You might remember the term ‘coalition of the willing’. The only major ally the US actually got to come along with us to Iraq was the UK. Everyone else rightfully sat out of that mess.
Good thing the west would never invade anything if they don’t have a defensive pact. Ow wait!
Did Iraq and Libya invade any democracies or NATO? Plenty of coping and short term memories in this thread. Or it could be something else?
Did anyone say they did?
You did.
Wasn’t libya a un coalition?
I thought Switzerland condemned Israel?
Never in a million years would Switzerland condemn Israel. The state loves Israel. Maybe a strongly worder “please don’t kill children in hospitals” was said, but no measures whatsoever were taken
deleted by creator
To Nato
A lot of countries from your list are already very close with NATO, they have NATO offices in their top military command and do most of the military exceraises with NATO. NATO also has a lot of officers of these countries on their paycheck, even some biggest presidentail candidates in these countries are NATO generals.
NATO has a huge control over the netural governments, only reason they don’t join is because of their populations that don’t like NATO countries invading middle east for oil. Mostly in the Balkans that is the case and some of the countries that joined, they did it without referendums against the will of their people. There is a big sentiment of NATO looking imperialistic and treating middle east and the balkans as colonies. Bosnia for example, doesn’t even have real independence, high representitve placed by the west, from the UN can veto anything that is not in their interest. “So far, all of the High Representatives named have been from European Union countries, and their principal deputies have typically been from the United States”
Zapp: What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?
Tell my wife I said…hello
Sings: “Did I tell you lately, that I’m neutral…!”
Good. Cry some more Russia.
Tears of a clown plays
Don’t be so blinded by your hatered towards the Russian government to not notice how US used this to strenghten their control over Europe. As horrible as this Russian invasion is, it is nothing compared to the decades of invasions in middle east done by NATO countries. Sweden will have to send their troops now to fight for US oil companies.
Lol, okay, guy.
What did I say wrong?
It’s funny how you dismiss Russia from being involved in the Middle East when it was one of the main reasons why the Middle East is so unstable. Bur continue on saying how bad NATO is.
How is Russia one of the main reasons that Middle East is unstable? Middle Eastern borders where drawn by the NATO mamber states, all terrorist organizastions are now publicly said to be first funded by the CIA. Every war that started in the Middle East was by US invasion and funded coups. Russia is bad and it got involved in some of the confilicts, but lets not be blinded by the hatered towards them so much to forget all the crimes in the Middle East done by our governments and pretend it is Russias fault for everything.
They would get less hatred if they stopped invading their neighbors.
I understand that. I am not saying they are not wrong in this. I am just saying that our governments are using this to extend their power, like they always do and is hurting us even more then the problem itself. As it always does.
You must really like the taste of russian boots, jfc.
Welcome Sweden! It’s good to have you
If feels peculiar. Like when you are the little brother of some guy and he brings you into their club and you become like their mascot or something.
Vikings with axes have joined the conversation…
90% of Sweden are migrants
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Sweden
Church of Sweden and no Religion account for 91% of all swedes. Immigrants with a different religion don’t even account for 10%
it’s amazing the chain of effect that happened when putin got so bold that he got orban to not only side with ukraine but also drop opposition to finland joining nato which caused sweden to join
Russia fucked up so badly LOL.
NEUTRALITY! HUH! WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR?
Not much if you’re left to defend yourself against a dictator who likes playing land grab and takes any excuse to rape murder and torture to subjugate as a valid excuse.
Look, I hate war as much as the next guy, but you gotta be pragmatic here. Putin is NOT a nice guy, to make an understatement. Without Putin’s in this world, we wouldn’t need wars, but here we are…
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
The only reply worth reading lmao
Getting picked off piecemeal by warmongers
Good god y’all!
This has happened exactly zero times in the one thousand year history of Sweden. Except for when the Danes came, but they got disposed of.
You’re right. Go tell them they have nothing to fear from Putin because the Shield Of History is protecting them. Meanwhile Australia, New Zealand, USA et al should all dispand all of their defense forces because they’ve never been invaded before so of course, history protects them too
Ok, I’m not the one to call strawman on people, I strawman all the time, but holy strawman batman.
