609
Ukraine tells critics of slow counteroffensive to 'shut up'
(www.reuters.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2023
609 points (94.1% liked)
World News
32321 readers
758 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
NATO is a defensive pact to protect nations from russian aggression, or other states also of course. Ukraine was invaded by Russia. Plenty of geopolitical experts have discussed how financial support of Ukraine is the best investment when it comes to weakening the Russian military. Which makes them less of a threat to NATO
yeah and if you believe that I've got a bridge to sell you
They were very defensive in Libya and Yugoslavia
Nice argument, however the population supported it:
[1] http://news.gallup.com/poll/156539/opinion-briefing-libyans-eye-new-relations-west.aspx [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20170608060559/https://www.orb-international.com/article.php?s=4-in-5-libyans-agree-country-heading-in-right-direction-according-to-post-revolution-citizen-poll
So it sounds more like you are just anti-NATO from an ideological perspective
Libya ended in open air slave markets lmao, and you're citing western sources saying "well they aaked for it
That is a ridiculous argument and you know it, unless your idealism has blinded you. "Something bad happened later so something good can't have happened before"
Yet you gloss over what it was like in these countries before. Here is an example of how Iraq was before: https://youtu.be/CR1X3zV6X5Y?si=QVE1b277NIVHnOUB
Does that mean the Iraq invasion was good? No. However don't remove all nuance from a discussion about helping the population overthrow a dictatorship, and the potential consequences of that action, just to attempt a cheap shot.
Gaddafi had his problems but sol massively improved under him. Given we back plenty of much worse dictatorships, it wasn't done for altruistic reasons. It was done because he was giving a cut of the wealth to the masses instead of to neocolonial powers. Incidentally, improving sol and education like Gaddafi was doing tend to trend to democratic transitions over time.
The open air slave markets were a direct result of the intervention. The US backed regime didn't have a democratic mandate and didn't have Gaddafi's entrenched power structures and collapsed.
No, a no fly zone was instated because Gaddafi was ordering air strikes on his own citizens, to the extent that his own representative to the UN asked for the no fly zone:
https://web.archive.org/web/20110226113522/http://www.english.globalarabnetwork.com/201102219941/Libya-Politics/libyan-ambassador-to-un-urges-international-community-to-stop-genocide.html
Are you going to continue just making things up?
Yes, the US which is the largest drone striker in the world and where it is explicitly legal for the president to kill US citizens without trial went in with a moral imperative because of air strikes.
Even if the Spanish sabotaged the USS Maine, the Gulf of Tonkin wasn't made up, and WMD were in Iraq, the cassi belle are not the structural reasons why the invasions happened. You're being intentionally credulous because you think US empire benefits you. It doesn't.
Yeah to be honest I'm a bit done with your mixture of fact and deliberate fiction to try to assist your ideology.
Here is an actual factual paper on the reasons for the Libyan invasion
https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/03/22/libya-and-the-myth-of-humanitarian-intervention
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12290-017-0447-5
There are plenty of discussion points for you without needing to sprinkle in fiction for good measure.
So did you actually read those links lmao? Because if you did you have to acknowledge you were wrong about what you've said in this thread and I was mostly correct according to your links.
Did you actually read what I wrote?
Yes, that is literally why I brought it up. Is there some subtext to this response I'm missing?
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/CR1X3zV6X5Y?si=QVE1b277NIVHnOUB
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
It is not an alliance against the Russian federation. It was an alliance against the ussr. After that it became a rogue army for enforcing us hegemony. Every time it has been used it was to make the world worse. This mercenary core was originally made of nazi generals with nazi soldiers as well. So it really boggles the mind that anyone thinks they could be good for the world.
NATO is a legacy of the Cold War that was aimless until the Russian invasion lol. The Soviet Union even tried to join NATO when it was first talked about and was rebuffed (and you can't say it's because "muh democracy," as Greece, Turkey, and Portugal - a literal fascist state until 1974 - have all been or are authoritarian states at various points in their NATO memberships).
Plenty also argued from the collapse of the Soviet Union that NATO expansion into eastern Europe would antagonize Russia.
Yeah it's pretty clear you're not trying to have a reasonable discussion when you mention that the USSR wanted to join NATO. That was an attempt to undermine the defensive pact by using it's own rules about inter-member conflicts against it.
One of the core strengths of NATO is that if a country is invaded then the other countries can't just vote to kick that state out. There is no mechanism to remove another country from the group, by design. So you are either uninformed or deliberately misrepresenting it when you discuss issues with certain members during their membership