NATO is ādefensiveā like the IDF is. Itās defensive of imperialist countries that export capital to super-exploit the global south, preventing any backlash from reaching the imperial core. The difference between NATO and the Alliance of Sahel States, for example, is that the countries banding together in NATO all benefit from imperialism, while the Sahel States are banding together to kick out imperialists. Both are millitary alliances, but one is highly reactionary while the other is progressive.
Sure, I guess if you want an invasion of the West to work itās a bad thing.
The IDF isnāt a fair comparison. They do a whole lot of stuff, unlike NATO which mainly prepares, and much of it does not meet the standard of defence to anyoneās satisfaction but Israel and maybe the US.
Well, thatās a natural place to end, but Iām curious. What would global socialism look like, according to you? If some regional national group wants do do something very not socialist, like I dunno, forced marriages, are they stopped, or allowed to? And what about groups that are almost but not quite a nation, like you tend to find anywhere with a long history?
Progressive movements are to be supported, reactionary movements are to be opposed. If a regional group wishes to, say, reinstate capitalism or feudalism, then this is to be corrected as bloodlessly as is feasible. Impulses towards reaction fade over time as socialism solidifies, but they definitely exist for at least a few generations after socialism is established.
National liberation is a pre-requisite for socialism, only then do borders begin to fade. In the interim, an internationalist federation of socialist polities would exist.
Alright, thanks for the answer. As you would certainly know, socialism grew out of liberalism. Trying to connect it back to ancient traditional societies (non-Western or Jewish or Christian) has always seemed like a stretch to me. Iāll paraphrase that as āwe wouldnāt unquestioningly support every non-Western nation, and would only have to deal with it for a while anywayā.
What about the second question, though. What makes a nation in the first place?
Socialism didnāt necessarily grow out of liberalism, and in many cases socialism has been established in societies that are distinctly Eastern, not Western. Socialism isnāt something uniquely European, but generally human.
Either way, a nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life and culture. Much has been written on nations in the Marxist canon, and many bend these general observations. Language in particular is an underrated area of Marxist studies.
Imperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism defined by the export of finance capital, super-exploitation of subjugated nations, and unequal exchange enforced by state power. NATO was not founded to protect democracy but to secure the geopolitical conditions for Western capital to extract surplus value. The narrative of defending freedom is merely a facade to obscure this class function.
The alliance institutionalized a transatlantic arms market guaranteeing demand for Western arms manufacturers, facilitating finance capital export while enforcing Euro-American hegemony. It standardizes military procurement to ensure profits flow back to core industries, maintaining the superiority required to enforce unequal exchange rates and resource extraction abroad. This is the material function of the organization beyond the rhetoric.
History disproves the democratic pretense immediately. Portugal was a founding member while under a fascist dictatorship, using NATO logistics to wage colonial wars in Africa. France and Belgium, also founders, were violently enforcing colonial rule in Algeria and the Congo at the allianceās formation. NATO coordinated with these regimes to protect imperial property relations, proving it exists to enforce the global hierarchy that makes super-exploitation possible.
Yes, the famous capitalist society of Ancient Rome.
No, mate. Imperialism is the maintaining and extending of power over foreign nations. NATO does nothing like that.
NATO was not founded to protect democracy but to secure the geopolitical conditions for Western capital to extract surplus value
Ah, OK, so you have no clue what NATO is, got it.
The alliance institutionalized a transatlantic arms market guaranteeing demand for Western arms manufacturers
Where else would the West be buying weapons during the Cold War? Russia? :D
History disproves the democratic pretense immediately
Yeah, because NATO had nothing to do with democracy. Like, what pretence? Where the fuck did you even get that from? Maybe, I donāt know, read the Wiki entry on NATO?
Ancient Rome was an empire. Modern imperialism is a specific stage of capitalist development: export of finance capital, monopoly concentration, unequal exchange enforced by state power. Mixing them up isnāt a gotcha, it just shows complete illiteracy in the realm of political theory.
You dodged the Portugal point entirely. Fascist dictatorship, founding NATO member, using alliance supply chains to wage colonial war in Africa. France and Belgium same deal. If NATO was about ādemocracy,ā how does that fit? Or do we just ignore the actual history?
And on your ābuy weapons from Russia?ā joke: the USSR applied to join NATO in 1954. They were rejected. The whole point was to have a permanent external threat to justify massive arms spending, lock in Western defense contracts, and discipline allied capitals.
Also wikipedia isnāt a neutral source on US-led institutions. Itās edited by volunteers, heavily influenced by Western narratives, and routinely policed for āfringeā critiques of state power. Citing it as the final word on NATO is like citing a Pentagon press release and calling it independent journalism.
If the argument is just āNATO good because wiki says so,ā then yeah, weāre not having the same conversation. But if you want to engage in actual analysis and conversation like an adult, as opposed to shouting talking points ad nauseum like a petulant child Iām all for that.
Modern imperialism is a specific stage of capitalist development: export of finance capital, monopoly concentration
OK, if you mean āimperialism via specifically means of economic pressureā, sure, call it āmodern imperialismā or something.
But āimperialismā is what I already said it is. Britain was pushing imperialist agendas before capitalism was a thing. Same with China, Japan, Spain, russia, Germany, France, etc., etc.
You dodged the Portugal point entirely. Fascist dictatorship, founding NATO member, using alliance supply chains to wage colonial war in Africa. France and Belgium same deal. If NATO was about ādemocracy,ā how does that fit? Or do we just ignore the actual history?
I didnāt dodge it. I answered it specifically - you have no clue what NATO is. NATO has nothing to do with what political system is running in a member country. Itās a military alliance. Has nothing to do with democracy.
And on your ābuy weapons from Russia?ā joke: the USSR applied to join NATO in 1954. They were rejected. The whole point was to have a permanent external threat to justify massive arms spending, lock in Western defense contracts, and discipline allied capitals.
āThe murderer asked to be let in the house. He was rejectedā.
Stop gobbling up russian propaganda. The threat was USSR. They were the ones who sent tanks to suppress the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and the 1968 Prague Spring. They were the ones who subjugated the conquered countries, and attempted russifying them.
NATO is a defensive pact against that aggression. Members consist only and specifically of countries that asked to join, nobody was forced.
Also wikipedia isnāt a neutral source on US-led institutions. Itās edited by volunteers, heavily influenced by Western narratives, and routinely policed for āfringeā critiques of state power. Citing it as the final word on NATO is like citing a Pentagon press release and calling it independent journalism.
Then how about you just open your eyes to whatās going on in the world. Show me ONE instance of NATO sending tanks to suppress an independence movement in a country.
If the argument is just āNATO good because wiki says so,ā
No, the argument is āNATO good because they donāt subjugate or attempt genocideā
But if you want to engage in actual analysis and conversation like an adult, as opposed to shouting talking points ad nauseum like a petulant child Iām all for that.
Oh, look, youāre already nearing the point of flinging personal attacks? One even say: ālike a petulant childā? I guess discussion is difficult when youāre arguing against reality.
āModern imperialism is a specific stage of capitalist developmentā¦ OK, if you mean āimperialism via specifically means of economic pressureā, sure, call it āmodern imperialismā or something. But āimperialismā is what I already said it is. Britain was pushing imperialist agendas before capitalism was a thing.ā
Again imperialism isnāt just āstrong countries pushing weaker ones around.ā Thatās a surface description, not an analysis. The modern form is structural: monopoly control of capital, export of finance rather than just goods, and a global system where wealth flows upward from subjugated economies to core powers through enforced unequal exchange. Pre-capitalist empires extracted tribute; this system extracts surplus value through debt, trade terms, and military backing. Conflating the two isnāt a rebuttal, itās just avoiding the actual analysis of the mechanism.
āI didnāt dodge it. I answered it specifically - you have no clue what NATO is. NATO has nothing to do with what political system is running in a member country. Itās a military alliance. Has nothing to do with democracy.ā
Then why does the treatyās preamble commit members to āsafeguarding the freedom and common heritage of democratic peoplesā? Why were ādemocratic reformsā mandatory for post-Cold War expansion? You canāt dismiss the values rhetoric when itās useful, then hide behind ājust a military allianceā when the Portugal contradiction hits. Fascist Portugal proved the priority: strategic alignment and capital protection over any real commitment to self-determination.
āThe USSR applied to join NATO in 1954. They were rejected. āThe murderer asked to be let in the house. He was rejectedā. Stop gobbling up russian propaganda. The threat was USSR.ā
The USSR applied to test whether NATO was about collective defense or containing any state outside Western capitalās orbit. The rejection confirmed the latter. Yes, the Soviet state committed atrocities, but NATOās function wasnāt moral arbitration. It was to lock Western Europe into a US-led military-economic bloc. The āSoviet threatā was instrumentalized to justify permanent arms spending, discipline allied capitals, and secure markets for Western defense monopolies. Thatās in US diplomatic records, not just āpropaganda.ā
āShow me ONE instance of NATO sending tanks to suppress an independence movement in a country.ā
Thatās a deliberately narrow frame. NATO doesnāt always need boots on the ground: bombing Yugoslavia in 1999 to break a sovereign state, arming proxies to overthrow Libya in 2011, backing the fascist coup in Greece in 1967. But the deeper point isnāt about direct occupation, itās about how military hegemony enforces the economic conditions for extraction: debt traps, structural adjustment, resource access. NATO secures the airspace; finance capital does the rest.
āNo, the argument is āNATO good because they donāt subjugate or attempt genocideāā
Thatās a embarrassingly low bar. By that logic, any alliance that doesnāt commit genocide is āgood.ā Meanwhile, NATOās actions have enabled mass death through sanctions, bombing campaigns, and destabilization. āNot genocideā isnāt a defense, itās a deflection from the material function: enforcing a global hierarchy where wealth flows from the periphery to the core.
āI guess discussion is difficult when youāre arguing against reality.ā
You called my analysis āpropaganda,ā told me to āread Wikipedia,ā and dismissed structural critique as ātalking points.ā Donāt pose as the adult when your rebuttal is moral scorekeeping and establishment sources. If you want to debate how the system actually works (finance flows, military backing, unequal exchange) Iām here. But you clearly have a narrative and talking points you like.
imperialism, state policy, practice, or advocacy of extending power and dominion, especially by direct territorial acquisition or by gaining political and economic control of other areas
The modern form is structural: monopoly control of capital, export of finance rather than just goods, and a global system where wealth flows upward from subjugated economies to core powers through enforced unequal exchange
Thatās not imperialism, thatās just capitalism. It is tied to imperialism, because the countries with the most capital are the ones with the most imperialistic policies to boot, but what you described here is just flat out capitalism.
Then why does the treatyās preamble commit members to āsafeguarding the freedom and common heritage of democratic peoplesā?
It does not.
Why were ādemocratic reformsā mandatory for post-Cold War expansion?
Because the 1995 study found that strong democracies contributed to stable and peaceful existence. NATO member countries can promote democratic principles, but NATO itself is uninterested in the underlying system of a country because itās a military alliance.
You canāt dismiss the values rhetoric when itās useful, then hide behind ājust a military allianceā when the Portugal contradiction hits
Portugal ācontradictionā is from 1950s.
The ādemocracy contributes to peaceā study is from 1995.
Iāll need you draw me a graph of where exactly you see a problem here.
The USSR applied to test whether NATO was about collective defense or containing any state outside Western capitalās orbit
Correct, it was a political provocation. Pointless, considering NATO was specifically designed to defend the West from russia.
The rejection confirmed the latter
Not a single person on the planet was surprised.
but NATOās function wasnāt moral arbitration. It was to lock Western Europe into a US-led military-economic bloc
Nobody ever said anything about āmoral arbitrationā, where are you even coming up with these things? :D Itās a defensive military alliance, thatās literally all there is to it!
Locking the West into the US-led military economic bloc happened āon accidentā. It was just the most economically viable strategy for Europe to lower their own military spending and investments and instead rely on a partner that was assumed to be stable, sane, and was guaranteed to have enough military spending to handle everything. It wasnāt a ploy by the US, it was laziness and naivete by Europe.
The āSoviet threatā was instrumentalized to justify permanent arms spending, discipline allied capitals, and secure markets for Western defense monopolies
It wouldāve been much harder to instrumentalise it if the Soviets didnāt confirm time and again, that the spending was necessary.
And, again, the spending was mostly on the side of the US. Europe was famously lacking in this regard to the point where Trump 1.0 threatened to withdraw US from NATO if the other member countries didnāt increase their spending.
NATO doesnāt always need boots on the ground: bombing Yugoslavia in 1999 to break a sovereign state
That wasnāt NATO, that was the UN.
arming proxies to overthrow Libya in 2011
Again, that was the UN, not NATO.
backing the fascist coup in Greece in 1967
Once more, not NATO. That was the US. Possibly some more member countries, but it was not NATO.
But the deeper point isnāt about direct occupation, itās about how military hegemony enforces the economic conditions for extraction: debt traps, structural adjustment, resource access. NATO secures the airspace; finance capital does the rest.
Thatās not NATO, thatās capitalism and politics.
Again: you have no idea what NATO is and it painfully shows.
Thatās a embarrassingly low bar. By that logic, any alliance that doesnāt commit genocide is āgood.ā
Compared to the ones that do? Correct.
Meanwhile, NATOās actions have enabled mass death through sanctions, bombing campaigns, and destabilization
NATO has no capability of imposing sanctions.
The ONLY ābombing campaignā by NATO was in Afghanistan in 2001 because that was the ONLY time when Article 5 was called and member-countries responded as NATO.
"Not genocideā isnāt a defense, itās a deflection from the material function: enforcing a global hierarchy where wealth flows from the periphery to the core.
Again, youāre not talking about NATO, because it has no tools to do any of that. Thatās just capitalism youāre angry with.
You called my analysis āpropaganda,ā told me to āread Wikipedia,ā and dismissed structural critique as ātalking points.ā
Yup. all of that is still true. Even Wikipedia would give you the basic fundamentals of why NATO cannot impose sanctions or force economic decisions on countries.
Donāt pose as the adult when your rebuttal is moral scorekeeping and establishment sources. If you want to debate how the system actually works (finance flows, military backing, unequal exchange) Iām here. But you clearly have a narrative and talking points you like.
Youāre just ignorant, mate. Youāre angry at NATO for being what it is not, and every point you mention proves that you just donāt know what NATO is.
Read a bit, learn some, then we can talk. As is, the discussion pointless.
āThatās not imperialism, thatās just capitalism.ā
Then you donāt understand how capitalism operates at scale. Military alliances arenāt separate from economic systems, they enforce them. When NATO standardizes procurement, secures trade routes, and backs regime change, itās not ājust capitalismā floating in a vacuum. Itās capitalism with teeth.
āPortugal ācontradictionā is from 1950sā¦ Iāll need you draw me a graphā
History doesnāt expire because itās inconvenient. Portugal used NATO-supplied weapons to wage colonial war into the 1970s. France used NATO intelligence in Algeria. Belgium used NATO logistics in Congo. The alliance didnāt āaccidentallyā include fascist colonizers, it coordinated with them. Thatās not a graph problem; thatās a priorities problem.
āThat wasnāt NATO, that was the UNā / āAgain, that was the UNā / āOnce more, not NATO. That was the US.ā
This is dishonest. NATO executed the Yugoslavia bombing campaign under a UN mandate. NATO led the Libya intervention under a UN mandate. The Greece coup was US-backed, yes, but NATO never suspended a fascist junta that violated its own ādemocratic principles.ā Youāre splitting hairs to dodge institutional responsibility. When the alliance provides the command structure, intelligence, and logistics, itās NATO.
āLocking the West into the US-led military economic bloc happened āon accidentāā¦ It was just laziness and naivete by Europe.ā
Sure. And the Marshall Plan was just generosity. US defense contractors didnāt lobby for NATO standardization. Congress didnāt tie aid to arms purchases. This isnāt conspiracy, itās documented policy. Europe wasnāt ānaiveā; it was integrated into a hierarchy that served core capital.
āNATO has no capability of imposing sanctionsā¦ Thatās just capitalism youāre angry with.ā
Military power and economic power arenāt separate spheres. NATO secures the conditions for capital to operate: sea lanes, airspace, regime stability. You think finance capital enforces unequal exchange by itself? It doesnāt. It has gunboats. NATO is the gunboat coordination mechanism.
āYouāre just ignorant, mateā¦ Read a bit, learn some, then we can talk.ā
You lied about the treaty preamble. You dismissed fascist Portugal as āold news.ā You pretended NATO had no role in Yugoslavia or Libya because āUN.ā You reduced structural analysis to āthatās just capitalismā like the two arenāt intertwined. Thatās not good faith engagement. You have only shown deflection, arrogance, and intellectual laziness.
Iām done. I donāt want to waste more time on someone who either canāt engage basic political economy or chooses not to. Youāve made it clear youāre not interested in reality, just the branding. All the best to you.
NATO is still an imperialist tool.
Yes, the aggressive action of too effectively not letting other people invade you. /s
How dare NATO countries not allow to be invaded?! Donāt they know might is right?
Waitā¦
NATO is ādefensiveā like the IDF is. Itās defensive of imperialist countries that export capital to super-exploit the global south, preventing any backlash from reaching the imperial core. The difference between NATO and the Alliance of Sahel States, for example, is that the countries banding together in NATO all benefit from imperialism, while the Sahel States are banding together to kick out imperialists. Both are millitary alliances, but one is highly reactionary while the other is progressive.
Sure, I guess if you want an invasion of the West to work itās a bad thing.
The IDF isnāt a fair comparison. They do a whole lot of stuff, unlike NATO which mainly prepares, and much of it does not meet the standard of defence to anyoneās satisfaction but Israel and maybe the US.
What I want is for the end of imperialism and the adoption of global socialism. NATO stands on the side preserving imperialism.
Well, thatās a natural place to end, but Iām curious. What would global socialism look like, according to you? If some regional national group wants do do something very not socialist, like I dunno, forced marriages, are they stopped, or allowed to? And what about groups that are almost but not quite a nation, like you tend to find anywhere with a long history?
Progressive movements are to be supported, reactionary movements are to be opposed. If a regional group wishes to, say, reinstate capitalism or feudalism, then this is to be corrected as bloodlessly as is feasible. Impulses towards reaction fade over time as socialism solidifies, but they definitely exist for at least a few generations after socialism is established.
National liberation is a pre-requisite for socialism, only then do borders begin to fade. In the interim, an internationalist federation of socialist polities would exist.
Alright, thanks for the answer. As you would certainly know, socialism grew out of liberalism. Trying to connect it back to ancient traditional societies (non-Western or Jewish or Christian) has always seemed like a stretch to me. Iāll paraphrase that as āwe wouldnāt unquestioningly support every non-Western nation, and would only have to deal with it for a while anywayā.
What about the second question, though. What makes a nation in the first place?
Socialism didnāt necessarily grow out of liberalism, and in many cases socialism has been established in societies that are distinctly Eastern, not Western. Socialism isnāt something uniquely European, but generally human.
Either way, a nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life and culture. Much has been written on nations in the Marxist canon, and many bend these general observations. Language in particular is an underrated area of Marxist studies.
You either donāt know what NATO is, or you donāt know what āimperialismā means.
Imperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism defined by the export of finance capital, super-exploitation of subjugated nations, and unequal exchange enforced by state power. NATO was not founded to protect democracy but to secure the geopolitical conditions for Western capital to extract surplus value. The narrative of defending freedom is merely a facade to obscure this class function.
The alliance institutionalized a transatlantic arms market guaranteeing demand for Western arms manufacturers, facilitating finance capital export while enforcing Euro-American hegemony. It standardizes military procurement to ensure profits flow back to core industries, maintaining the superiority required to enforce unequal exchange rates and resource extraction abroad. This is the material function of the organization beyond the rhetoric.
History disproves the democratic pretense immediately. Portugal was a founding member while under a fascist dictatorship, using NATO logistics to wage colonial wars in Africa. France and Belgium, also founders, were violently enforcing colonial rule in Algeria and the Congo at the allianceās formation. NATO coordinated with these regimes to protect imperial property relations, proving it exists to enforce the global hierarchy that makes super-exploitation possible.
Yes, the famous capitalist society of Ancient Rome.
No, mate. Imperialism is the maintaining and extending of power over foreign nations. NATO does nothing like that.
Ah, OK, so you have no clue what NATO is, got it.
Where else would the West be buying weapons during the Cold War? Russia? :D
Yeah, because NATO had nothing to do with democracy. Like, what pretence? Where the fuck did you even get that from? Maybe, I donāt know, read the Wiki entry on NATO?
Ancient Rome was an empire. Modern imperialism is a specific stage of capitalist development: export of finance capital, monopoly concentration, unequal exchange enforced by state power. Mixing them up isnāt a gotcha, it just shows complete illiteracy in the realm of political theory.
You dodged the Portugal point entirely. Fascist dictatorship, founding NATO member, using alliance supply chains to wage colonial war in Africa. France and Belgium same deal. If NATO was about ādemocracy,ā how does that fit? Or do we just ignore the actual history?
And on your ābuy weapons from Russia?ā joke: the USSR applied to join NATO in 1954. They were rejected. The whole point was to have a permanent external threat to justify massive arms spending, lock in Western defense contracts, and discipline allied capitals.
Also wikipedia isnāt a neutral source on US-led institutions. Itās edited by volunteers, heavily influenced by Western narratives, and routinely policed for āfringeā critiques of state power. Citing it as the final word on NATO is like citing a Pentagon press release and calling it independent journalism.
If the argument is just āNATO good because wiki says so,ā then yeah, weāre not having the same conversation. But if you want to engage in actual analysis and conversation like an adult, as opposed to shouting talking points ad nauseum like a petulant child Iām all for that.
OK, if you mean āimperialism via specifically means of economic pressureā, sure, call it āmodern imperialismā or something.
But āimperialismā is what I already said it is. Britain was pushing imperialist agendas before capitalism was a thing. Same with China, Japan, Spain, russia, Germany, France, etc., etc.
I didnāt dodge it. I answered it specifically - you have no clue what NATO is. NATO has nothing to do with what political system is running in a member country. Itās a military alliance. Has nothing to do with democracy.
āThe murderer asked to be let in the house. He was rejectedā.
Stop gobbling up russian propaganda. The threat was USSR. They were the ones who sent tanks to suppress the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and the 1968 Prague Spring. They were the ones who subjugated the conquered countries, and attempted russifying them.
NATO is a defensive pact against that aggression. Members consist only and specifically of countries that asked to join, nobody was forced.
Then how about you just open your eyes to whatās going on in the world. Show me ONE instance of NATO sending tanks to suppress an independence movement in a country.
No, the argument is āNATO good because they donāt subjugate or attempt genocideā
Oh, look, youāre already nearing the point of flinging personal attacks? One even say: ālike a petulant childā? I guess discussion is difficult when youāre arguing against reality.
Again imperialism isnāt just āstrong countries pushing weaker ones around.ā Thatās a surface description, not an analysis. The modern form is structural: monopoly control of capital, export of finance rather than just goods, and a global system where wealth flows upward from subjugated economies to core powers through enforced unequal exchange. Pre-capitalist empires extracted tribute; this system extracts surplus value through debt, trade terms, and military backing. Conflating the two isnāt a rebuttal, itās just avoiding the actual analysis of the mechanism.
Then why does the treatyās preamble commit members to āsafeguarding the freedom and common heritage of democratic peoplesā? Why were ādemocratic reformsā mandatory for post-Cold War expansion? You canāt dismiss the values rhetoric when itās useful, then hide behind ājust a military allianceā when the Portugal contradiction hits. Fascist Portugal proved the priority: strategic alignment and capital protection over any real commitment to self-determination.
The USSR applied to test whether NATO was about collective defense or containing any state outside Western capitalās orbit. The rejection confirmed the latter. Yes, the Soviet state committed atrocities, but NATOās function wasnāt moral arbitration. It was to lock Western Europe into a US-led military-economic bloc. The āSoviet threatā was instrumentalized to justify permanent arms spending, discipline allied capitals, and secure markets for Western defense monopolies. Thatās in US diplomatic records, not just āpropaganda.ā
Thatās a deliberately narrow frame. NATO doesnāt always need boots on the ground: bombing Yugoslavia in 1999 to break a sovereign state, arming proxies to overthrow Libya in 2011, backing the fascist coup in Greece in 1967. But the deeper point isnāt about direct occupation, itās about how military hegemony enforces the economic conditions for extraction: debt traps, structural adjustment, resource access. NATO secures the airspace; finance capital does the rest.
Thatās a embarrassingly low bar. By that logic, any alliance that doesnāt commit genocide is āgood.ā Meanwhile, NATOās actions have enabled mass death through sanctions, bombing campaigns, and destabilization. āNot genocideā isnāt a defense, itās a deflection from the material function: enforcing a global hierarchy where wealth flows from the periphery to the core.
You called my analysis āpropaganda,ā told me to āread Wikipedia,ā and dismissed structural critique as ātalking points.ā Donāt pose as the adult when your rebuttal is moral scorekeeping and establishment sources. If you want to debate how the system actually works (finance flows, military backing, unequal exchange) Iām here. But you clearly have a narrative and talking points you like.
It literally is.
From Britannica:
Thatās not imperialism, thatās just capitalism. It is tied to imperialism, because the countries with the most capital are the ones with the most imperialistic policies to boot, but what you described here is just flat out capitalism.
It does not.
Because the 1995 study found that strong democracies contributed to stable and peaceful existence. NATO member countries can promote democratic principles, but NATO itself is uninterested in the underlying system of a country because itās a military alliance.
Portugal ācontradictionā is from 1950s.
The ādemocracy contributes to peaceā study is from 1995.
Iāll need you draw me a graph of where exactly you see a problem here.
Correct, it was a political provocation. Pointless, considering NATO was specifically designed to defend the West from russia.
Not a single person on the planet was surprised.
It wouldāve been much harder to instrumentalise it if the Soviets didnāt confirm time and again, that the spending was necessary.
And, again, the spending was mostly on the side of the US. Europe was famously lacking in this regard to the point where Trump 1.0 threatened to withdraw US from NATO if the other member countries didnāt increase their spending.
That wasnāt NATO, that was the UN.
Again, that was the UN, not NATO.
Once more, not NATO. That was the US. Possibly some more member countries, but it was not NATO.
Thatās not NATO, thatās capitalism and politics.
Again: you have no idea what NATO is and it painfully shows.
Compared to the ones that do? Correct.
NATO has no capability of imposing sanctions.
The ONLY ābombing campaignā by NATO was in Afghanistan in 2001 because that was the ONLY time when Article 5 was called and member-countries responded as NATO.
Again, youāre not talking about NATO, because it has no tools to do any of that. Thatās just capitalism youāre angry with.
Yup. all of that is still true. Even Wikipedia would give you the basic fundamentals of why NATO cannot impose sanctions or force economic decisions on countries.
Youāre just ignorant, mate. Youāre angry at NATO for being what it is not, and every point you mention proves that you just donāt know what NATO is.
Read a bit, learn some, then we can talk. As is, the discussion pointless.
The preamble explicitly commits members to āsafeguarding the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law.ā Lying about an easily verifiable fact isnāt a rebuttal, itās just embarrassing.
Then you donāt understand how capitalism operates at scale. Military alliances arenāt separate from economic systems, they enforce them. When NATO standardizes procurement, secures trade routes, and backs regime change, itās not ājust capitalismā floating in a vacuum. Itās capitalism with teeth.
History doesnāt expire because itās inconvenient. Portugal used NATO-supplied weapons to wage colonial war into the 1970s. France used NATO intelligence in Algeria. Belgium used NATO logistics in Congo. The alliance didnāt āaccidentallyā include fascist colonizers, it coordinated with them. Thatās not a graph problem; thatās a priorities problem.
This is dishonest. NATO executed the Yugoslavia bombing campaign under a UN mandate. NATO led the Libya intervention under a UN mandate. The Greece coup was US-backed, yes, but NATO never suspended a fascist junta that violated its own ādemocratic principles.ā Youāre splitting hairs to dodge institutional responsibility. When the alliance provides the command structure, intelligence, and logistics, itās NATO.
Sure. And the Marshall Plan was just generosity. US defense contractors didnāt lobby for NATO standardization. Congress didnāt tie aid to arms purchases. This isnāt conspiracy, itās documented policy. Europe wasnāt ānaiveā; it was integrated into a hierarchy that served core capital.
Military power and economic power arenāt separate spheres. NATO secures the conditions for capital to operate: sea lanes, airspace, regime stability. You think finance capital enforces unequal exchange by itself? It doesnāt. It has gunboats. NATO is the gunboat coordination mechanism.
You lied about the treaty preamble. You dismissed fascist Portugal as āold news.ā You pretended NATO had no role in Yugoslavia or Libya because āUN.ā You reduced structural analysis to āthatās just capitalismā like the two arenāt intertwined. Thatās not good faith engagement. You have only shown deflection, arrogance, and intellectual laziness.
Iām done. I donāt want to waste more time on someone who either canāt engage basic political economy or chooses not to. Youāve made it clear youāre not interested in reality, just the branding. All the best to you.