Auf YouTube findest du die angesagtesten Videos und Tracks. Außerdem kannst du eigene Inhalte hochladen und mit Freunden oder gleich der ganzen Welt teilen.
NATO expansion was known as a bad thing as early as the 1990s after the Soviet Union collapsed. Officials in the US and the principle European NATO states (France, Germany) knew that the continued expansion of NATO in Eastern Europe would not be received well by the Russians. In 2008, they made it formal the expansion of NATO to Ukraine and Georgia. In 2014, the US assisted the Ukrainian nationalist, who are right-wingers by the way, to topple a democratically elected government, so they can install a pro-NATO regime. The whole concept is to socially engineer Ukraine to be culturally NATO and EU-centric culturally on the elite level. Ukrainian nationalist are right of MAGA. They are referred to as fascist by Russians for their symbology of neo-Nazi imagery. Neoliberal democrats and republicans say MAGA is bad, well, Ukrainian Ultra-Nationalist are your “far right” buddies that you give a lot of money to fight Russians in what is supposed to be a forever war.
I am not sure if they really believe they are a pure race, or it is just an intimidating tactic against Russians. Either way, within Western circles, it is whiffs like a Nazi, it is a Nazi. Not unless, it serves US interests. Western media and Western officials pretend Ukraine nationalist are liberals. Considering the environment, liberalism does not work in Ukraine, because power politics dominates.
An example of why NATO expansion is bad in certain cases is making a hypothetical example of Warsaw Pact Expansion. Imagine an alternate timeline of events where NATO collapsed, and the Warsaw Pact won the Cold War. The expansion of Warsaw Pact to the West beyond Poland and East Germany would make the US and British very scared. But since Westerners believe they are the good guys, and the world is composed of bad guys vs good guys, they don’t see the obvious instigator of the conflict. They believe in their own BS.
The United States is the principal country in NATO. It runs NATO. Therefore, NATO power is de facto US power, because it runs the show. NATO is how the US controls European policy in Europe. European interests are subservient to US interests. The US is the head of the NATO hierarchy. In exchange, NATO removes security competition among the more powerful NATO states, by paying for most of their defense. When a new country becomes a NATO member, the US wants to install military bases in that country. Let me ask you a question. Does Germany or France have military bases in the US? No, they don’t. That in itself is very telling. The US has no threat in the Western Hemisphere. No Chinese, no Russians, no Iranians, and no North Koreans. Therefore, the US is not a country concerned about defense. It is able to “roam” around the world, and in the process create all kinds of havoc, because it can. So this is about power, and dominance; to dominate the world. Instead, what you hear from the US government, and their narrative peddlers, is that it is about “national security”. This is nothing more than a cover to hide the ulterior policy of power dominance.
The EU is the other component of the militarization of Europe under NATO. The point of the EU is to control member states. It is for EU nations to submit to a central authority. To strip away their sovereignty. The idea is to minimize the concept of nation-states by eliminating borders and to force policy such as mass immigration. Brexit was about this, among other things. Originally, and initially, I thought the EU was simply about economic integration, but it seems obvious it is simply more than just economic integration. It is the submission of its members to Brussels.
The ideology, behind this, is neoliberalism. Things like security competition are ideologically neutral. All nation-states, regardless of ideology, communism, capitalism, whatever, seek security by being dominant. If they can’t, they should navigate wisely international politics. Think small states like Liechtenstein and Singapore, who are simply too small to be powerful to have many options to project power. The Russians are conservative. The EU and NATO are liberal. Not only do the Russians object to US dominance over them, they are also opposite in the views of everyday issues.
NATO is bad on the whole, because the world is not liberal. The world is composed of nation-states. They do not want a foreign power like the US involved and determining their national politics. Take, for example, Afghanistan, and the fake liberal democracy the US installed in that country. Was it their politics, or was it American politics? It wasn’t their politics. It wasn’t their democracy. Furthermore, it was American democracy. Neoliberalism will inevitably run into the stumbling block of nationalism. When multiple nation-states see a single actor as a threat to their national politics, they coalesce. In these cases, US-NATO, and US-Israel are the prime threats to nation-states. The US is the principal financier, supplier, and fomenter of destabilization in the world right now. If you follow the money, whether it is death, and destruction in Gaza, or a repression of NATO in Ukraine, the US is behind it. If you remove the US, neither theaters of conflict would exist. Israeli belligerence would not be anywhere as great as it is now without US support. Israeli’s are clever people. They hijacked middle eastern foreign policy from within the US. For Ukraine; the whole issue is US-NATO, that’s it. The US is the principal troublemaker in the world right now.
NATO expansion was known as a bad thing as early as the 1990s after the Soviet Union collapsed. Officials in the US and the principle European NATO states (France, Germany) knew that the continued expansion of NATO in Eastern Europe would not be received well by the Russians. In 2008, they made it formal the expansion of NATO to Ukraine and Georgia. In 2014, the US assisted the Ukrainian nationalist, who are right-wingers by the way, to topple a democratically elected government, so they can install a pro-NATO regime. The whole concept is to socially engineer Ukraine to be culturally NATO and EU-centric culturally on the elite level. Ukrainian nationalist are right of MAGA. They are referred to as fascist by Russians for their symbology of neo-Nazi imagery. Neoliberal democrats and republicans say MAGA is bad, well, Ukrainian Ultra-Nationalist are your “far right” buddies that you give a lot of money to fight Russians in what is supposed to be a forever war.
I am not sure if they really believe they are a pure race, or it is just an intimidating tactic against Russians. Either way, within Western circles, it is whiffs like a Nazi, it is a Nazi. Not unless, it serves US interests. Western media and Western officials pretend Ukraine nationalist are liberals. Considering the environment, liberalism does not work in Ukraine, because power politics dominates.
An example of why NATO expansion is bad in certain cases is making a hypothetical example of Warsaw Pact Expansion. Imagine an alternate timeline of events where NATO collapsed, and the Warsaw Pact won the Cold War. The expansion of Warsaw Pact to the West beyond Poland and East Germany would make the US and British very scared. But since Westerners believe they are the good guys, and the world is composed of bad guys vs good guys, they don’t see the obvious instigator of the conflict. They believe in their own BS.
The United States is the principal country in NATO. It runs NATO. Therefore, NATO power is de facto US power, because it runs the show. NATO is how the US controls European policy in Europe. European interests are subservient to US interests. The US is the head of the NATO hierarchy. In exchange, NATO removes security competition among the more powerful NATO states, by paying for most of their defense. When a new country becomes a NATO member, the US wants to install military bases in that country. Let me ask you a question. Does Germany or France have military bases in the US? No, they don’t. That in itself is very telling. The US has no threat in the Western Hemisphere. No Chinese, no Russians, no Iranians, and no North Koreans. Therefore, the US is not a country concerned about defense. It is able to “roam” around the world, and in the process create all kinds of havoc, because it can. So this is about power, and dominance; to dominate the world. Instead, what you hear from the US government, and their narrative peddlers, is that it is about “national security”. This is nothing more than a cover to hide the ulterior policy of power dominance.
The EU is the other component of the militarization of Europe under NATO. The point of the EU is to control member states. It is for EU nations to submit to a central authority. To strip away their sovereignty. The idea is to minimize the concept of nation-states by eliminating borders and to force policy such as mass immigration. Brexit was about this, among other things. Originally, and initially, I thought the EU was simply about economic integration, but it seems obvious it is simply more than just economic integration. It is the submission of its members to Brussels.
The ideology, behind this, is neoliberalism. Things like security competition are ideologically neutral. All nation-states, regardless of ideology, communism, capitalism, whatever, seek security by being dominant. If they can’t, they should navigate wisely international politics. Think small states like Liechtenstein and Singapore, who are simply too small to be powerful to have many options to project power. The Russians are conservative. The EU and NATO are liberal. Not only do the Russians object to US dominance over them, they are also opposite in the views of everyday issues.
NATO is bad on the whole, because the world is not liberal. The world is composed of nation-states. They do not want a foreign power like the US involved and determining their national politics. Take, for example, Afghanistan, and the fake liberal democracy the US installed in that country. Was it their politics, or was it American politics? It wasn’t their politics. It wasn’t their democracy. Furthermore, it was American democracy. Neoliberalism will inevitably run into the stumbling block of nationalism. When multiple nation-states see a single actor as a threat to their national politics, they coalesce. In these cases, US-NATO, and US-Israel are the prime threats to nation-states. The US is the principal financier, supplier, and fomenter of destabilization in the world right now. If you follow the money, whether it is death, and destruction in Gaza, or a repression of NATO in Ukraine, the US is behind it. If you remove the US, neither theaters of conflict would exist. Israeli belligerence would not be anywhere as great as it is now without US support. Israeli’s are clever people. They hijacked middle eastern foreign policy from within the US. For Ukraine; the whole issue is US-NATO, that’s it. The US is the principal troublemaker in the world right now.