Empire To Expand NATO In Response To War Caused By NATO Expansion
(ronpaulinstitute.org)
Comments (32)
sorted by:
I think the title oversimplifies things. Ukraine wasn't just an eastward advance of the Western Bloc, it was one accomplished by backing the Euromaidan revolution against the Russian-aligned government.
Sweden and Finland, on the other hand, are not subverted Russian clients; they're doing this because they don't trust Russia without the security of Article Five. It's the difference between Cuba joining the USSR and a Canadian puppet government doing the same.
So Ukraine is Bay of pigs.
It's more the leading NATO players manufacturing another mujahedeen on which to break the Russian military.
As the article states, the only apparent reason to prevent Ukraine trying to sue for peace is to to run a sales pitch for Thales and Raytheon, as manufacturers of the Starstreak and NLAW for Thales and the Stinger and Javelin for Raytheon, and to see just how badly it's possible to attrit the Russian military before China assesses them as an easier target than us.
Ukrainian nationalism.
Zelensky was suspected being a secret Russian puppet by them, they won't take it easy if he really becomes one (in their eyes). There won't be a peace, just a civil war, and way worse than the one in Ireland (that was already worse then the Irish war of independence that preceded it). Or the complete chaos like in Chechnya 1996-1999 (radicals making trouble after a peace treaty again), before the Russian tanks came back. It's not Georgia 2008, it's more like Georgia in the early 1990s.
No one was "joining the USSR" after 1945 (Königsberg). It was the Warsaw Pact of countries bordering each other with Soviet garrisons in each of them (so Soviet tanks could keep governments in check and drive in to bring them down if some wanted to leave, as in Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968, and allegedly almost Poland 1981).
Then there were "the sattelites", who could adjoin the Soviet state (like Afghanistan) or not (like Cuba). Many socialist countries were just simply "fraternal" allies without being subjegated puppet states like Afghanistan would become. Some countries fucked off from the Moscow orbit, like Yugoslavia or Somalia, and sooner or later and more or less aligned with America instead while proclaiming the Third World officially.
Right. I meant "joining" as in "teaming up with" and not "being assimilated by."
Turkey should be kicked out of NATO. Fuck Erdoğan and his little hostage negotiations with Sweden and Finland.
Also, I'm laughing at anyone who would call NATO - a defensive alliance - an "empire", when it has absolutely none of the trappings of an empire, and in fact, all of the meaningful "empire" elements - if any - are more properly enshrined in the formation of the EU, not NATO.
edit: anti-americans seething
NATO isn't the empire; it's a vassal of the Globalist American Empire.
Funny how you claim America has an "empire" yet America gets absolutely none of the benefits from this "empire" that every past historical empire has always received from its vassals and territories.
No foreign military force is under the control of America and none of obligated to serve America when called upon for any reason - even the late British Empire - the loosest of all empires with its "commonwealth" system - could compel military servitude from commonwealth countries. Can America? No. Proof: we haver to ask nicely and hope other countries agree to help us, and plenty of times they either outright refuse (Turkey in the Gulf War) or give a tiny amount of token help that makes no difference.
America gets 0 economic advantages. American companies have to compete with foreign companies without any advantage. Could you imagine an Imperial Japanese company having to COMPETE with foreign companies to exploit the conquests of Imperial Japan? Nope.
So by what metric does America have an "empire"? The obvious answer is: none.
America is PART of a HEGEMONIC COALITION comprised of the US, EU, Commonwealth, and Japan/Korea/Taiwan.
Yeah, a real "COALITION" not being totally run by the US State Department. I believe this is the real power structure because I'm retarded you see.
When was the last time that NATO troops fought a battle within the borders of a NATO country?
Paris 2015 (attack by Islamic State).
I don't know if CIA stooges count as NATO troops.
Sounds like the alliance is highly successful then, doesn't it?
It's an Empire. Empires fight expansionist wars, until they over extend and start having internal political turmoil, economic collapse, and falls to social degeneracy as previously conquered tribes start to get away with not integrating. Then they fall apart and hundreds of years of civil structures are destroyed.
Go to retard school.
How many NATO countries have a US military base in them?
How many NATO countries have a military base in the US?
The reason no other countries have military bases in the US is that:
The US is far away from all the threats, and
The US doesn't need anyone else's help
The reason the US has military bases in other countries is that:
These countries are in close proximity to neighbors who act in a threatening, belligerent manner, and
These countries want the US taxpayer to subsidize their defense.
Ah yes, the UK and Spain are famous for their proximity to threats to Democracy. This is some serious liberal delusion.
I'm one of the most anti-lib people in this sub or on this earth.
The UK and Spain joined NATO because they knew if the USSR was able to smash through the fulda gap and conquer western europe, they would be next.
Also the US has almost no presence in Spain, for the obvious reason that Spain isn't "close to the action" as you point out.
Naval Station Rota is SPANISH naval base under SPANISH command in which the Americans are invited guests. It's obviously there as a strategic naval base because of its proximity to Gibraltar. Rota and the nearby Morón Air Base, are Spanish bases that Spain allows the US to use for logistics purposes, as the bases are used for refueling on the way to and from the Middle East.
So those people that you think lie about everything with regards to the way domestic politics works are completely honest about the way foreign politics works? Fascinating.
It's funny how you acknowledge that those bases are operated in support of the empire, but then deny the territory is part of the empire. The liberal delusion gets worse.
Spez: Next you're going to tell me the Delian League was just a voluntary association of Athens's good friends.
It's not a "lib" position to be in NATO. That's a mainstream conservative position, too. Pretty much every Republican, including Trump, agreed. The only person who might disagree would be someone like Rand Paul, and I doubt even he would try. Republicans and conservatives are not libs.
You keep using that word "empire" I do not think it means what you think it means.
As far as I'm concerned, people like you who keep pushing this delusion that the word "empire" is basically a meaningless word, are authoritarian shills trying to give cover to the only two remaining evil empire-building nations left on earth: Russia and China.
It could have been, but historically, Athens chose to abuse its position of power to try to turn it into a de-facto empire instead of a voluntary coalition. If America behaved the same way Athens did, maybe you'd have an argument. America does not, however, and so you do not.
Membership in the Delian League was not voluntary. Many cities were forced to join whether they wanted to or not. Cities that rebelled against membership were attacked and subjugated through military force. America does none of these things. When Turkey backstabbed America in the Gulf War, America did not respond by invading Turkey and subjugating it to puppet status the way Athens would have. When other countries tell America "no" when it asks them to join coalitions, America just says "oh, okay" and does nothing about it.
America's primary foreign policy tool is paying large bribes, which is not what "empires" do. Just look at all the money the US gives to Israel, to muslim countries so they'll actually cooperate against terrorism, and to hispanic countries to cooperate against drug cartels. An empire wouldn't fuck around with any of this. Empires do not entice consent, they impose will through force.
"By 454 BC, the Delian League could be fairly characterised as an Athenian Empire; a key event of 454 BC was the moving of the treasury of the Delian League from Delos to Athens."
Athens maintained garrisons for the purpose of controlling the occupied state.
Athens extracted tributes.
Technically they are trotskyites that exist to further the revolution. The only thing they conserve are lib victories. The delusion continues.
Spez: How did a shitlib like you even find this place?
NATO should be over when USSR ended. This Ukraine war was created to increase military production against Russia and China. NATO is a joke and should end.
Except we now know in hindsight how stupid that would have been, since Russia remained a hostile threat even after the USSR collapsed. If Russia's thug regime collapses and is replaced with a peaceful democratic government, then I would agree that NATO would have nothing left to do except bully small countries like Serbia & Libya.
...by Putin. Putin is 100% the reason for this war. He gave the order to invade, against the advice of some of his senior advisors, who he bullied and humiliated in public because they tried to warn him. I speak, of course, of Sergey Naryshkin. We all saw the video of Putin humiliating and intimidating him in public right before the invasion.
Why would Putin want to increase military production against Russia and China? That's strange! You seem to be arguing that Putin didn't start this war. That makes you a schizo.
I don't see anyone laughing. You might want NATO to end because you want to see the rise of evil Russian and Chinese empires. I sure as fuck do not. The dreams of a resurgent Russian Empire are already dead, we are just watching the slow motion train wreck that were Putin's imperial dreams play out in the Donbas.
So countries voluntarily joining NATO is "imperialism" now?
You're blaming Russian aggression on the internal affairs of other countries? Do you think American aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan was justified then? You don't think a dictator's paranoia and delusions of grandeur has anything to do with it?
Put away your biases and re-examine the facts.
Do countries have national sovereignty or not? If so, how are countries voluntarily allying with one another "imperialistic" behavior? Does anyone in their right mind think NATO wants to invade Russia, or are European countries just scared of Russian military aggression?
American interventionism in the middle east is not the same has European countries joining NATO. The two are not equivalent.
No, national sovereignty has never existed for minor countries in the game of great power politics. That is a liberal myth.
Fuck Russia. They caused the very thing they didn't want. One way to deal with children throwing temper tantrums is not to appease them.
The war was caused by the lack of "NATO expansion". More exactly, NATO refusing Ukraine's aspirations for decades (why do you think Ukraine sent troops to Iraq?).
Funny how NATO screw over the Kurds again... the only people that deserve to go terrorist mode on us are the Kurds. We fucked them over so many times.