-14

Head of NATO says Russia invaded Ukraine because of NATO expansionism (www.nato.int)

submitted 1 year ago by Hexadecimalkink@lemmy.ml to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml

171 comments fedilink hide all child comments

From the guy's own mouth.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] aaaaaaadjsf@hexbear.net 50 points 1 year ago

And let me just end by saying that this reflects the political reality that nations are sovereign.

I mean that's just factually untrue. Every nations sovereignty is restricted by geopolitical realities. No nation can just do whatever they desire, including joining certain alliances. Mexico will not be joining BRICS for instance, because of the geopolitical situation. And that's not even a military alliance, which NATO is! Europeans are not special, they have to play by the same rules as everybody else. To claim otherwise is to ignore the reality on the ground right now, both in Ukraine and globally.

Also none of this factors in that joining NATO, by definition, involves giving up some part of your nations sovereignty. NATO in reality acts as an extended arm of the US military and it's industrial complex, and in joining, countries are subjected to this reality of Atlanticism.

[-] Syldon@feddit.uk -1 points 1 year ago

Mexico will not join BRICs because they would then have to leave USMCA trade agreement. Cuba, your nearest neighbour, can do whatever it wants. The US does not get to dictate anymore by military might. They have done in the past. To do so today would bring other trade deals into conflict. The EU would be very against this. This does not mean the US cannot use its financial might, which it clearly does and often.

Also none of this factors in that joining NATO, by definition, involves giving up some part of your nations sovereignty. NATO in reality acts as an extended arm of the US military and it’s industrial complex, and in joining, countries are subjected to this reality of Atlanticism.

Simply not true. Being part of NATO is not an aggressive pact. It is only enacted if another member is attacked. One or more members being aggressive does not mean the rest have to follow. The US and the UK attacked Iran as individual nations. The US has the biggest say in NATO because they spend more than anyone else by quite some distance. Something that is changing because of the Russian attempts to annex Ukraine into its own borders.

[-] tripartitegraph@hexbear.net 52 points 1 year ago

Being part of NATO is not an aggressive pact. It is only enacted if another member is attacked.

Yugoslavia and Libya would probably beg to differ.

[-] Syldon@feddit.uk 0 points 1 year ago

UN led is not NATO led.

[-] aaaaaaadjsf@hexbear.net 37 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

One or more members being aggressive does not mean the rest have to follow.

But they usually always do, because of the implication...

You are aware that the US and UK were not the only countries to deploy troops to Iraq (not Iran, as you mistakenly claim). There was a whole NATO training operation involving 13 NATO member states. 20 of the current 31 NATO members had some form of troop deployment in Iraq between 2003 and 2011.

Cuba, your nearest neighbour, can do whatever it wants. The US does not get to dictate anymore by military might. They have done in the past. To do so today would bring other trade deals into conflict. The EU would be very against this

I am not American, and it's quite clear the US does use it's military might when it needs to, to dictate the order of the world, and there is nothing that the EU can do about it. Precisely because their sovereignty is curtailed due to being US vassal states. Of which NATO membership is a key part. This includes actions against the EU. Unless you want to argue that the nordstream gas pipelines just spontaneously combusted.

[-] Syldon@feddit.uk -3 points 1 year ago

If it was a NATO aggressive action then ALL would be involved not just a portion.

As for the US using it military might, it has been bitten enough to know it is just a waste of money. Unless you have a costed strategic end game policy, simply removing dictatorships is not enough.