DocWatts

What Lefties Get Wrong About NATO

87 posts in this topic

8 minutes ago, Cykaaaa said:

It just seems very implausible to me that humanity will keep its peace forever.

Maybe our own selfishness will be that will save humanity, who knows. Individual and collective egos will fight for their survival forever thats for sure.In my opinion this 21st century will decide this question , whether we really survive or not. However, nuclear war is just only one threat among many that could kill us all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Thank God no one gave you any power. You sound more insane than Putin.

That's quite an emotional response. I think you pick and choose when you tend to apply a lense of Love and Harmony. Evolution doesn't work in a linear way, because it tends to create biases that seek to uphold themselves. Purely physically speaking, we could probably progress mankind more in 5 years than we did in the last 50 years if only the motivation was there to do so. The reason why we do not do so is because systems tend to seek comfort within norms.

Usually it requires a dramatic event to cause dramatic changes. Like if you get cancer, you might suddeny get the motivation to change your entire life, meditate for 4 hours a day, adopt healthy habits and take joy in every moment of your life. If you had never gotten cancer, you might have lived your life in stagnation, comfort and essentially misery.

This is true for evolution too. Dinosaurs existed for hundreds of millions of years and they barely changed, life was stagnating. And yes, what wiped out the dinosaurs was a terrible tragedy, for the dinosaurs. However, it shook life to it's core, enabling it to take completely new pathways that were not possible to take previously because systems had stabilized to such a degree that new changes simply would not have occured.

 

My hope would be that a world war would eventually lead to greater harmony. From what I know current projections actually show that most humans would survive a nuclear holocaust, in a kind of worst case scenario. And it might very well be that it would actually reduce suffering in the world for that period, as it would put an end to most factory farms.

It's a very human centric perspective to call a nuclear holocaust a bad thing. For others it would mean freedom and new opportunities. And for life as a whole it might mean greater expression of harmony, complexity and love. Our current societies have a legacy that very much limited our future trajectory, and shaking it up would give us the ability to create a new foundation, made from a higher level of consciousness.

 

 

So, interestingly you have done to me what you have accused others of when talking about Putin. You have assumed your relative perspective to be absolute, and dismissed mine because it undermined your survival.

 

 

We can see this on a smaller scale playing out in the EU. The EU was in comfort, but it was not necessarily acting in it's best interest. Sometimes to act in your best interest requires some event that forces you to do so, an event that makes remaining in the status quo more uncomfortable than actually going through the resistance and effort to change.

In a similar manner, the events Putin initiated might let to great suffering in Russia, which in turn might lead to a revolution that will weed out much of the corruption currently present in the system. Corruption that under other circumstances would have continued to exist for a long time. I would accuse you of being myopic in this regard Leo.

Edited by Scholar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

8 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Vaush underplays the fact that in a nuclear arms race (which NATO vs Russia is) strengthening defense is an escalatory move. One side cannot just keep raising their defenses and then acting surprised when the other side counters by raising their offenses. It would be foolish in this scenario for the defense-raising side to cry, "But we were just being defensive! We weren't hurting anyone. But you guys are the bad guys because you started going offensive!"

Defense and offense are entangled. If the West has overwhelming defensive capabilities and keeps raising them every year, Russia will be forced into an offensive posture, and start looking to create a defensive buffer zone.

Yes, NATO is primarily defensive. However, what is not acknowledged is that raising defense in such an overwhelming way is legitimately threatening and perpetuates an arms race.

"But Russia has nothing to fear!" is not a serious position. If Russia was not proactive the US and NATO would certainly stage a coup and depose their government. This much is obvious. The US is not going to stop until it has a pro-US government in Russia.

Sigh.

Nato raises their defense as a response to Russia raising their offense. (And also as a response to China raising their offense.)

Why do I even write here..

Edited by Blackhawk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Blackhawk said:

Sigh.

Nato raises their defense as a response to Russia raising their offense. (And also as a response to China raising their offense.)

Why do I even write here..

What Russian offenses triggered the expansion of NATO from the 90's through the 00's?


You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Blackhawk said:

Sigh.

Nato raises their defense as a response to Russia raising their offense. (And also as a response to China raising their offense.)

Why do I even write here..

NATO raises defense because it wants world domination, western world order and American hegemony. 

That's why it keeps bombing countries that it sees as a threat to world domination. 

This is all happening because of NATO. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

What Russian offenses triggered the expansion of NATO from the 90's through the 00's?

Because countries wanted to secure their security for the future, while they could.

The best time to become a Nato member is when there is deep peace and calm. So your country will be safe in the future.

For Ukraine it's way too late to become a Nato member, because of Russia's offenses.

It's maybe too late for Sweden and Finland to join too, because of Putin. We should have joined before the war, when there was peace and calm (except the war in eastern Ukraine).

So maybe we have to wait many years until Russia stops with the offenses, and then join.

So that's why countries join Nato when there's no offenses happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Preety_India said:

NATO raises defense because it wants world domination, western world order and American hegemony. 

That's why it keeps bombing countries that it sees as a threat to world domination. 

This is all happening because of NATO. 

Omg. No. Just no. That's the conspiracy theory which Kremlin wants you to believe in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On 3/6/2022 at 8:56 PM, DocWatts said:

The West really dropped the ball after the fall of the Soviet Union by not offering them the equivalent of a Marshal Plan, and helping with the transition to a democracy. 

Instead, multinationals were given free reign to practice Disaster Capitalism in Russia, and one can't help but see the current situation as a direct consequence of the West's greedy and short sighted behavior.

Yep you are probably right on that, but maybe they probably feared that they shouldn't help, invest too much of their resources into the effort or assist them in some comprehensive economic package aid or deliberate  investment way into their economy to help it back up and properly transition and solidify as smoothly as possible into a more prosperous, less corrupt Western style market one, because the country seemed to big and massive to them for them to seem to think that they would get any long term profitable returns and gains from doing that and unreliable to them in that regard in contrast to what Germany and Japan were before the war (economically culturally wise) and proved themselves to be very reliable allies after, and that the country seemed to them too much unpredictable overall in its politics, economy and overall in history and therefore a dangerous risk and attempted risky gamble for them to risk do so to invest much of their precise and scarce resource allocation to do so that they needed and wanted investing into other parts of the world more equally to incorporate them and more easily transformable and better prospects for growth countries into the new global economic system more generally, dispersely and equally, unlikely to succeed in pacifying it as long as it took Germany and Japan, because of it's massive size on the globe, it's past political culture up until that point, relationship with the West and America in general and the fact that it has a lot of nukes, which would be a risk giving it any sort of leverage to the West in that way, and perhaps at some point a fear from them that it developed long enough it would attempt to break free from the one-sided influence as a potentially dangerous near equal power which might cause problems for their vision that they then thought, so better to not help it a lot and keep it in constant subordinate position to the Western economies, markets and finances as long as possible and keep it in check with NATO in former countries near it so it will never rise up as dangerous destabilising influence and competitor for America's world vision and plans and the West's on the global stage, as it once was, might have been some of their thinking then regarding the question and future vision for the kind of Russia they would have liked to see. 

Well now because of that, progressives and some more pro-socialist oriented people and established parties in the West now think they are forced to, because of Russia, to, I say this with having a deep ironic stance towards this in mind, take the same ironic, German and most other Social-Democrats positions across most of western and central Europe at the time, in WWI, and vote for the equivalent of war credits then, for a pretty large and massive subsequent now yearly increase of government budget appropriated and allocated for defence spending for the military and NATO subsequently (I say very large and massive indeed in contrast prior to the same yearly ammount for that allocated from their overall GDPs for that sector up until this point) , not seeing the slightly deep historical parallels and irony in what they are attempting and purporting to wanting in doing now with that and hoping to achieve, as well as the one and the same then social-democrats believed then they would hope to achieve prior with using those mechanisms by towing the necessity of expanded war budgets line, later appropriated for the service and solidifying economic support and interests for the imperialist war and then later ironically not being able to be implemented in full as it was promised because of the utter economic devastation for Europe's economies and the political rightization turn of large parts of the populations, working to middle class, afterwards caused by and in ill begotten service to that devastating imperialist war for Europe's later development and influence of their economies globally, tying and linking them as reference point, Great Britain's financial sector hegemony in the world up until that point, as best example for that, to US finance and Wall Street and ceding to them the title and passing them stewardship of the most global influential financial power with their currency from 1917 and onwards. 

I don't see how some of those, justified and unjustified, meritable or not, in this point in history and the way today the economy in most developed countries and across the world is overall structured, we shall see, seeming stark historical parallels and prior precedents in European and world history, escapes them completely, as mentioning them at least as some considerations and precautions to take based on some real precedents from the past in history when similar decisions of this character have been made swiftly and almost as ad hoc without enough public dialogue, discussions of possible alternatives and relevant political opposition, public mobilisation and debate around them especially now due to their past precedents, of some of them at least, when they are fully on board and towing the line completely with some of those decisions that their governments are forwarding as a necessity of being taken, with no other possible routes and options now, for managing relations, approaching, deterring and containing Russia's overly aggressive, some would say triggered, moves and acts. 

Edited by Fleetinglife

''society is culpable in not providing free education for all and it must answer for the night which it produces. If the soul is left in darkness sins will be committed. The guilty one is not he who commits the sin, but he who causes the darkness.” ― Victor Hugo, Les Misérables'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Blackhawk said:

Omg. No. Just no. That's the conspiracy theory which Kremlin wants you to believe in.

NATO is the real conspiracy. But sheep are always sheep. Anyway I won't go into the details of it. 

You don't know America, is all I'll say. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Preety_India said:

NATO is the real conspiracy. But sheep are always sheep. Anyway I won't go into the details of it. 

You don't know America, is all I'll say. 

You don't know Russia, is all I'll say.

Until a few days ago you even thought that Russia is a peaceful country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Blackhawk said:

You don't know Russia, is all I'll say.

Until a few days ago you even thought that Russia is a peaceful country.

Russia is largely peaceful. I don't see Russia as a threat. I don't see Putin going around bombing every nook and cranny of the world the way NATO does. Russia and India can make a good partnership. Although US will be angry with India in that case. But Russia can be a good ally to India, a faithful ally,unlike the backstabbing US. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Preety_India said:

Russia is largely peaceful. I don't see Russia as a threat. I don't see Putin going around bombing every nook and cranny of the world the way NATO does. Russia and India can make a good partnership. Although US will be angry with India in that case. But Russia can be a good ally to India, a faithful ally,unlike the backstabbing US. 

What you call "going around bombing every nook and cranny of the world" is actually UN mandated protection of civilians, stopping genocide, and fighting terrorism.

Anyway, I'm sorry that you are lost to a stupid conspiracy theory. Take care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Blackhawk said:

What you call "going around bombing every nook and cranny of the world" is actually UN mandated protection of civilians, stopping genocide, and fighting terrorism.

Anyway, I'm sorry that you are lost to a stupid conspiracy theory. Take care.

These countries didn't do genocide. There is no factual evidence. Using terrorism and totalitarian regime is just an excuse for a bigger agenda. 

You're acting as though NATO is some beautiful humanitarian saviour of the world. I bet NATO has taken more lives by bombing than those countries did through whatever genocide. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

The US sets the rules of the Western world order which are of course most favorable to the US. Obviously this is not in Russia's interest.

Within the Western world order Putin's government would be overthrown because it doesn't serve US interests.

@Leo Gura when you say US lead does that mean that I as an Norwegian/ Norway benfit from that? read a bit about the world bank and IMF I guess they are a part of the US western hegemony. What are your thougts about the world bank and IMF? net postive for humankind?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Preety_India said:

Russia is largely peaceful.

Lol, because it's a dictatorship. If you aren't peaceful, you land in jail. If you protest, you land in jail. If you look at the police sideways, you land in jail. Get it? You aren't free.


“You don’t have problems; you are the problem.”

– Swami Chinmayananda

Namaste ? ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Blackhawk said:

Because countries wanted to secure their security for the future, while they could.

The best time to become a Nato member is when there is deep peace and calm. So your country will be safe in the future.

So now you understand why Putin had to attack Ukraine. He had to attack while he could, to secure his country's future.

The best time to attack Ukraine is when there is deep peace and calm. So your country will be safe in the future.

Your logic, not mine.

7 minutes ago, JTL said:

@Leo Gura when you say US lead does that mean that I as an Norwegian/ Norway benfit from that? read a bit about the world bank and IMF I guess they are a part of the US western hegemony. What are your thougts about the world bank and IMF? net postive for humankind?   

I don't know. These are extremely complex matters. There are no simple answers.

I know little about Norway.


You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

So now you understand why Putin had to attack Ukraine. He had to attack while he could, to secure his country's future.

The best time to attack Ukraine is when there is deep peace and calm. So your country will be safe in the future.

Your logic, not mine.

I don't know. These are extremely complex matters. There are no simple answers.

I know little about Norway.

Do you think that Obama or Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton would've been able to adeptly prevent this Russian-Ukraine war from happening if any one of then were our sitting US president given the fact that each one are undoubtedly political geniuses compared to Biden who was never as smart as any of them were?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

So now you understand why Putin had to attack Ukraine. He had to attack while he could, to secure his country's future.

The best time to attack Ukraine is when there is deep peace and calm. So your country will be safe in the future.

Your logic, not mine.

Ridiculous.

Ukraine and Nato would never be a offensive military threat to Russia. And Putin knows it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

Biden who was never as smart as any of them were?

What do you expect from a puppet. xD


“You don’t have problems; you are the problem.”

– Swami Chinmayananda

Namaste ? ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Blackhawk said:

Ridiculous.

Ukraine and Nato would never be a offensive military threat to Russia. And Putin knows it.

It’s more than just attack or defend. War can be in various of domains.

It’s simple. Putin felt that Russia is left behind so he decided to gain more power for the sake of his country. Like any other country does. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now