To be fair, many of the imperialist wars in the middle east have been joint military operations of certain NATO members. They have not really been sanctioned NATO operations though, with quite a few in NATO in opposition to the wars.
That being said, the distinction may seem meaningless when NATO resources are used by the imperialists anyway. However, the level of material support for the US agression towards Iran has been less than before, maybe even remarkably so.
The point is to be historically precise so that we can identify the development of the fracture of US domination within the imperial core.
the level of material support for the US agression towards Iran has been less than before, maybe even remarkably so.
That has nothing to do with morals or the imaginary independence from the US.
The only difference is that Iran is not a defenseless resource-rich country where they can help the big bully leader in return for some crumbs of the loot.
They know joining this war would mean actual war and cost them a lot.
It’s pure cowardice.
You only have to hear what that worm Rutte says or the ghouls VDL and Kallas.
They shamelessly give full verbal support to the nazi empire, condemn Iran and would be helping the war criminals if it were without consequence.
There is no fracture.Where did I say anything about morality? I said the material support has fallen, which is a drastic shift for the lackeys of the empire. They absolutely had the cowardly option, like they always has, to let the US use their bases, defend their actions diplomatically and provide military and logistical support after the initial invasion.
The support is not there (comparatively to before). The old NATO is dead and its not just an unspoken truth anymore. The European countries are preparing to split with the US, mostly because they fear to be abandoned, but the material steps already taken will ensure that ultimately they will renegotiate the compromise NATO always was for them.
Which is why we should pay attention to how defiant (read on a toothless European scale) the rest of NATO has been post the Greenland crisis. This will increase as the material dependency on the US as a security guarantee falters further.
Where did I say anything about morality?
You didn’t, I saw it as implied.
And there is no split with NATO, that is theater and shock therapy .
Now we vassals are already impoverished from sanctions and economic consequences they could not get the population to pay more for the US wars.
They created this fake rift and just like that we’re on our own and our last cent has got to go to our defense.
‘To our defense’ in reality means being filling the bottomless hole of ukraine.The US have outsourced the cost to us vassals so they can tackle China, Iran or whatever they want to harrass.
In 2 years when Trump is gone we’ll suddenly be friends again with a respectable US imperialist democratic president warmonger.
The extortionate war crap rates will be kept in place.
Suckered again.We are going towards a multipolar world order and Europe knows it. There is no going back and this is not just theatrics. The “defense spending” in reality is buying independence from US vassalization. They are purposefully not buying American and laying the groundwork for another alliance where they are not subjugated.
Since I am not really getting anything for free here: No, this is still not a moral argument. The argument is that the capitalists of Europe will seek return on this investment. Trump going away, and who is to say he is, is not going to change this materially.
Absolutely unrelated, but I love the username, should we get a dwarffortress community going? (unless that’s already a thing and I’m just missing out lol)
Join us here !dwarffortress@lemmy.ml!
Ooh the libs don’t like people shitting on NATO it seems.
“oh, the middle east? idk why you care about it because there’s wars there all the time for some reason”
I’ve literally seen libs, who when questioned why African countries shouldn’t receive the same priority on aid as Ukraine, responded with “I don’t really care about dictatorships”, WHICH LIKE IF YOU DON’T THEN KEEP THE MILITARY OUT AND LEAVE THEM ALONE
Somehow Ukraine, the state where opposition parties are banned, their leaders hunted and elections postponed indefinitely, isn’t a dictatorship. This is because
they’re whiteZelenskyuyu is wholesome chungus 100 cool guy comedianLibs will call Sahel states “juntas” “dictatorships” and so on the second they hear Russia is helping them decolonise, not to mention Ukraine is also sending soldiers to help recolonise them.
Invading other countries isn’t bad when WE do it
When we force other countries to invade for self defense, its good to convince our people that other country is the bad one.
All countries are bad. Nation states are imaginary monsters.
Perfect comment for people from both sides to think it is about them, fuck wars
Ahh yes, “liberating” a population by bombing them. A policy shared by both NATO and Russia. Both should look at China’s example for an alternative path.
the difference is in why they’re bombing and what they’re bombing – nato/ukraine are bombing the same way the us is bombing iran.
Big difference is that one is acting in legitimate self-defense, and has been forced to do so by an Imperialist neighbor who not only invaded them, but indiscriminately bombs civilian neighborhoods. You know, like the US did to Iran.
And yet China manages to take the high road with Taiwan, Japan, India, etc.
The difference is not a matter of moral fiber but strategic positioning. The western part of Russia is surrounded by NATO countries over land borders. The capitalist bloc simply can’t threaten China in the same way, and if they could then we would be seeing a similar response.
China made trade groups with their regional rivals, so no, we do not see a similar response. China’s response is rooted in win-win diplomacy that improves the material conditions of all parties involved. It is less a moral calculation and more a material one that creates a moral authority.
Russia was trading (on preferrential terms) with Europe and on especially preferrential terms with Ukraine before the West decided to put up Nazis in power in Ukraine, who then immediately started shelling their eastern population for being too Russian and the highest level politicians literally saying “your children will be hiding in the basement while ours go to school”.
Then Euros voluntarily cut themselves off from that fountain of wealth in hopes of getting ALL of it through war.
China is the factory of the world, and even then they’re constantly told they’re bad, and that they should be destroyed, etc. The difference is that they’re the most industrialized and well organized country out there so they can call the bluff.
Yes and that is a winning strategy. As another ml account highlighted, war with the global north did not end well for the USSR, which comparatively speaking was much more a peer in terms of power than the current Russia. China’s strategy is the one that recognizes that the tactics available flow down stream from material conditions.
madelinte pendelton postulated that china’s foreign relations strategy is to avoid war at all costs with the global north since they saw how they strangled the soviet union into non-existence and it explains why they’re willing to accept all the pain and simply walk away from all of their investments in latin america despite having the power to push back like the united states does.
Isn’t Brazil part of BRICS? Their strategy isn’t just to avoid war, they are building soft power at a time when the USA is burning goodwill for short term gain (though with Iran the only gains seem to be oil profits).
it is part of the brics, but the united states and isreal have been throwing their weight around in latin-american to reverse the soft power gains that china has made by rigging the electronic voting systems and the election in brazil is already 50/50.
that’s why brazil banned american “election officials” from entering their country a few days ago and the americans hit back w sanctions and obstructing the election campaign on facebook and other social media platforms.
their goal is to get bolsonaro’s son elected so that they can isolate mexico and totally reverse the leftwards shift that latin-america has been going towards for the last 20-ish years.
Actually Russia’s first solution was the Minsk agreement, then their second solution was the second Minsk agreement, then they had a war and during the war they agreed to a negotiation with Ukraine (early on into the war) which America and Britain proceeded to have thrown out
