• bumphot
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    25
    ·
    8 months ago

    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.

    • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      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.

      • bumphot
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        8 months ago

        Sweden, like many other non-NATO states, are only officially not in NATO because of lack of popular support. These wars are used to pass these things officially. US influences many countries, being in NATO officailly makes this easier. As volontery as it might seem, people rarely give support for these things and politicains that do usually get funded by the US.

      • bumphot
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        8 months ago

        Wikipedia has citations. I don’t know what could you find as more reliable? What did you have in mind? Also I don’t think this is fair. I gave you the source, it is just as reliable as any other, since it has citations for all of it. If the situtation was reversed and you saw wikipedia article that claimed the opposite and I replied exactly the way you did, how would you react? Be honest