this post was submitted on 24 Jun 2025
246 points (96.9% liked)
World News
41346 readers
323 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If Trump took the US out of NATO, he would genuinely be remembered as the harm reduction candidate for the Global South. Sadly, Trump would never actually be anti-NATO, US Imperialism depends too greatly on it.
Yes, we know, you are preaching to the choir here, lemmy.ml.
But I'd rather we not back out of NATO, decouple trade and invade friendly neighbors all while the US continues to screw over far away countries first. At this point, backing out of NATO is not going to help our bad behavior.
After that, we can worry about not screwing with other countries so much, hopefully.
So you'd rather we remain in NATO, terrorizing the global south, fully emboldened and screwing over the world? A US without NATO is one without the main imperialist army at its beck and call.
Guess what NATO does?
Lol no he wouldn't.
He absolutely would, NATO is seen very negatively in the global south due to its constant aggression and its role in maintaining western imperialism. Just look at what happened to Libya, Yugoslavia, and even covert ops like Operation GLADIO.
How evil is NATO, stopping a genocidal Serbia.
There was immense nationalism and ethnic violence on all sides, which NATO used as justification to bomb thousands of civilians to death along with key infrastructure in order to prop up a western-friendly regime. NATO intervention didn't help the awful situation, it only steered the outcome into the favor of the west at the expense of war crimes.
Yeah they should have been left to genocide their neighbors, how dare NATO step in. Fuckin' imperialists imposing their "morals".
The Albanians were also committing extreme ethnic violence against the Serbs. When NATO bombed Yugoslavia, it killed over 300 Albanian civilians and over 1700 Serbian civilians, destroyed 164 state-owned factories, and bypassed UN approval against NATO's own charter. Not a single private, pro-western factory was bombed.
The real reason NATO bombed Yugoslavia was because Yugoslavia refused to become a colony. Yugoslavia had agreed to give up Kosovo, but wanted the FRY to retain political and economic soveriegnty, and prevent NATO occupation. NATO countered by wanting full access to the FRY's communication, infrastructure, and territory. Yugoslavia refused, and then NATO bombed them.
NATO involvement was about economics, not a humanitarian concern. NATO wanted open and full access to as many markets as possible, even if it meant bombing those who go against them in any real way. Just like what's going on with Israel and the US bombing Iran, and NATO countries like the UK and France assisting Israel in air defense.
NATO didn’t stop a genocide; it aided one[1][2][3].
Sorry buddy, I read about your writers before the articles. Surely a group of people paid by Russia to advance Russian geopolitical aims would be unbiased. Russia Today *RT, (sorry, some capital leaked in) writers would surely be unbiased and not writing puff pieces for their objectively imperialist funders, right? Right????
It's my belief that a nation that fell apart and had the majority of their conquests leave doesnt have a right to reclaim them. Ukraine is a sovereign nation, and so is Bosnia and Croatia and.... I invite you to seeth at nations now free.
I guess Noam Chomsky and Michael Parenti are paid shills, too?
Ukraine may be sovereign on paper, but it’s a vassal of the US, which couped its government in 2014 (and 2004). Previously. Previously.
Shill for Russia harder. Gold star for being the world's most useful idiot!