• Jesus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    These autocrats have always wanted to drop NATO.

    Let’s not pretend like X is their reason. Supporting autocracy is their reason, and now they’re trying to come up with excuses to get the public onboard.

      • perestroika@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        So, NATO had a problematic operation, trying to establish (and coordinate the establishment of) guerilla stay-behind troops to use in the event of Soviet takeover - and the operation went especially problematic in Italy during the Years of Lead, where some of those guys associated with right-wing terrorists. The year was 1969 or so.

        Basing on this, how do I conclude anything about the NATO of today?

        Disclaimer: I was asked to hold an anti NATO speech during a protest event during a NATO summit. Being a moderately honest anarchist, I held a speech denouncing the practises seen in Afghanistan (the year was 2012), but emphasized that collective self defense is a valuable thing to have (a common attitude here in Eastern Europe), and added that if the alliance would bother doing what it says on the sticker, I would support it.

        NATO is an alliance of various countries. Some of them aren’t nice or democratic (classic example: Turkey). Mixed bag, and constantly changing. Membership in NATO is not a letter of indulgence for a member state to do anything - allies are obliged to help only if someone attacks a member state. If a NATO member attacks someone else, allies can ignore the affair or even oppose the member (example: Turkey recently bombed Kurdish troops in Syria so sloppily that threatened US troops shot down a Turkish drone).

        • index@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          “According to several Western European researchers, the operation involved the use of assassination, psychological warfare, and false flag operations to delegitimize left-wing parties in Western European countries, and even went so far as to support anti-communist militias and right-wing terrorism as they tortured communists and assassinated them, such as Eduardo Mondlane in 1969”

          Based on this conclude what you want about the NATO of today.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steadfast_Defender_2024

          • perestroika@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            Based on this, I conclude: the NATO of today is a mostly defensive alliance with some taints in its history.

            It is currently very busy doing a real job - opposing a conquering dictator named Vladimir Putin.

            I wish it luck, as long as it sticks to its declared purpose. If it oversteps, I will revise my opinion.

            • index@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              It is currently very busy doing a real job

              Yes i’m sure they are doing a very busy job like they were in their tainted history (false flag operations to delegitimize left-wing parties in Western European countries)

              If it oversteps

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_Response

              “Several of the operations were along the coast in the borders between sea and land, and together with roads and populated areas. Surveillance, patrols, road control posts, vehicle inspection, control of air space, minesweeping, evacuation of civilians, and riot control were important part of the exercise.”

              • perestroika@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                If you are sure about something, then bring evidence of considerable off-label activities.

                In response to your response about “Nordic Response”:

                Surveillance, patrols, road control posts, vehicle inspection, control of air space, minesweeping, evacuation of civilians, and riot control were important part of the exercise.”

                Those are realistic military duties in war time. Every military practises them. Where do you find a fault?

                An example from real life: the Ukrainian military has checkpoints on roads near the frontline. Moving with a vehicle, you’d expect to show papers, say a few words and maybe even show transported goods. The purpose? Finding reconnaisance / sabotage groups, which every competent enemy is expected to send. If an opponent doesn’t send recon or saboteurs, they are fools. If a military doesn’t learn how to deter those, they’re fools.

                How does one learn? After dry reading in a classroom: one holds an excercise. There’s a home team and an opposing team. The home team checks, the opposing team infiltrates. Both teams report what they achieved, results get compared. If the blue team found the “saboteurs”, good. If the red team “blew up” all bridges and pipelines in the area, people think hard about what they did wrong. If they don’t practise, they don’t get to think hard.

                • index@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Those are realistic military duties in war time. Every military practises them. Where do you find a fault?

                  Where do i find a fault in conducting vehicle inspections and riot control at peace time, from an organization with a shady past involving false flag operations, psychological warfare and assassinations aimed at delegitimize left-wing parties.

                  Dunno buddy let me keep thinking

                  An example from real life: the Ukrainian military has checkpoints on roads near the frontline. Moving with a vehicle, you’d expect to show papers, say a few words and maybe even show transported goods. The purpose? Finding reconnaisance / sabotage groups, which every competent enemy is expected to send. If an opponent doesn’t send recon or saboteurs, they are fools. If a military doesn’t learn how to deter those, they’re fools.

                  The ukrainian military also have checkpoints in the west border to make sure any male between 18 and 60 doesn’t leave the country so that they can be forced into war.

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobilization_in_Ukraine

                  How does one learn? After dry reading in a classroom: one holds an excercise. There’s a home team and an opposing team. The home team checks, the opposing team infiltrates. Both teams report what they achieved, results get compared. If the blue team found the “saboteurs”, good. If the red team “blew up” all bridges and pipelines in the area, people think hard about what they did wrong. If they don’t practise, they don’t get to think hard.

                  To me this sound like military rhetoric coming from a military man. You self defined yourself as being a moderately honest anarchist, i suggest you to keep doing your anarchist readings and re-read the works of Emma Goldman and Errico Malatesta.

                  https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/emma-goldman-preparedness-the-road-to-universal-slaughter

                  https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/errico-malatesta-the-european-war-and-the-international-workers-organization