imperialism, state policy, practice, or advocacy of extending power and dominion, especially by direct territorial acquisition or by gaining political and economic control of other areas
The modern form is structural: monopoly control of capital, export of finance rather than just goods, and a global system where wealth flows upward from subjugated economies to core powers through enforced unequal exchange
That’s not imperialism, that’s just capitalism. It is tied to imperialism, because the countries with the most capital are the ones with the most imperialistic policies to boot, but what you described here is just flat out capitalism.
Then why does the treaty’s preamble commit members to “safeguarding the freedom and common heritage of democratic peoples”?
It does not.
Why were “democratic reforms” mandatory for post-Cold War expansion?
Because the 1995 study found that strong democracies contributed to stable and peaceful existence. NATO member countries can promote democratic principles, but NATO itself is uninterested in the underlying system of a country because it’s a military alliance.
You can’t dismiss the values rhetoric when it’s useful, then hide behind “just a military alliance” when the Portugal contradiction hits
Portugal “contradiction” is from 1950s.
The “democracy contributes to peace” study is from 1995.
I’ll need you draw me a graph of where exactly you see a problem here.
The USSR applied to test whether NATO was about collective defense or containing any state outside Western capital’s orbit
Correct, it was a political provocation. Pointless, considering NATO was specifically designed to defend the West from russia.
The rejection confirmed the latter
Not a single person on the planet was surprised.
but NATO’s function wasn’t moral arbitration. It was to lock Western Europe into a US-led military-economic bloc
Nobody ever said anything about “moral arbitration”, where are you even coming up with these things? :D It’s a defensive military alliance, that’s literally all there is to it!
Locking the West into the US-led military economic bloc happened “on accident”. It was just the most economically viable strategy for Europe to lower their own military spending and investments and instead rely on a partner that was assumed to be stable, sane, and was guaranteed to have enough military spending to handle everything. It wasn’t a ploy by the US, it was laziness and naivete by Europe.
The “Soviet threat” was instrumentalized to justify permanent arms spending, discipline allied capitals, and secure markets for Western defense monopolies
It would’ve been much harder to instrumentalise it if the Soviets didn’t confirm time and again, that the spending was necessary.
And, again, the spending was mostly on the side of the US. Europe was famously lacking in this regard to the point where Trump 1.0 threatened to withdraw US from NATO if the other member countries didn’t increase their spending.
NATO doesn’t always need boots on the ground: bombing Yugoslavia in 1999 to break a sovereign state
That wasn’t NATO, that was the UN.
arming proxies to overthrow Libya in 2011
Again, that was the UN, not NATO.
backing the fascist coup in Greece in 1967
Once more, not NATO. That was the US. Possibly some more member countries, but it was not NATO.
But the deeper point isn’t about direct occupation, it’s about how military hegemony enforces the economic conditions for extraction: debt traps, structural adjustment, resource access. NATO secures the airspace; finance capital does the rest.
That’s not NATO, that’s capitalism and politics.
Again: you have no idea what NATO is and it painfully shows.
That’s a embarrassingly low bar. By that logic, any alliance that doesn’t commit genocide is “good.”
Compared to the ones that do? Correct.
Meanwhile, NATO’s actions have enabled mass death through sanctions, bombing campaigns, and destabilization
NATO has no capability of imposing sanctions.
The ONLY “bombing campaign” by NATO was in Afghanistan in 2001 because that was the ONLY time when Article 5 was called and member-countries responded as NATO.
"Not genocide” isn’t a defense, it’s a deflection from the material function: enforcing a global hierarchy where wealth flows from the periphery to the core.
Again, you’re not talking about NATO, because it has no tools to do any of that. That’s just capitalism you’re angry with.
You called my analysis “propaganda,” told me to “read Wikipedia,” and dismissed structural critique as “talking points.”
Yup. all of that is still true. Even Wikipedia would give you the basic fundamentals of why NATO cannot impose sanctions or force economic decisions on countries.
Don’t pose as the adult when your rebuttal is moral scorekeeping and establishment sources. If you want to debate how the system actually works (finance flows, military backing, unequal exchange) I’m here. But you clearly have a narrative and talking points you like.
You’re just ignorant, mate. You’re angry at NATO for being what it is not, and every point you mention proves that you just don’t know what NATO is.
Read a bit, learn some, then we can talk. As is, the discussion pointless.
Then you don’t understand how capitalism operates at scale. Military alliances aren’t separate from economic systems, they enforce them. When NATO standardizes procurement, secures trade routes, and backs regime change, it’s not “just capitalism” floating in a vacuum. It’s capitalism with teeth.
“Portugal ‘contradiction’ is from 1950s… I’ll need you draw me a graph”
History doesn’t expire because it’s inconvenient. Portugal used NATO-supplied weapons to wage colonial war into the 1970s. France used NATO intelligence in Algeria. Belgium used NATO logistics in Congo. The alliance didn’t “accidentally” include fascist colonizers, it coordinated with them. That’s not a graph problem; that’s a priorities problem.
“That wasn’t NATO, that was the UN” / “Again, that was the UN” / “Once more, not NATO. That was the US.”
This is dishonest. NATO executed the Yugoslavia bombing campaign under a UN mandate. NATO led the Libya intervention under a UN mandate. The Greece coup was US-backed, yes, but NATO never suspended a fascist junta that violated its own “democratic principles.” You’re splitting hairs to dodge institutional responsibility. When the alliance provides the command structure, intelligence, and logistics, it’s NATO.
“Locking the West into the US-led military economic bloc happened ‘on accident’… It was just laziness and naivete by Europe.”
Sure. And the Marshall Plan was just generosity. US defense contractors didn’t lobby for NATO standardization. Congress didn’t tie aid to arms purchases. This isn’t conspiracy, it’s documented policy. Europe wasn’t “naive”; it was integrated into a hierarchy that served core capital.
“NATO has no capability of imposing sanctions… That’s just capitalism you’re angry with.”
Military power and economic power aren’t separate spheres. NATO secures the conditions for capital to operate: sea lanes, airspace, regime stability. You think finance capital enforces unequal exchange by itself? It doesn’t. It has gunboats. NATO is the gunboat coordination mechanism.
“You’re just ignorant, mate… Read a bit, learn some, then we can talk.”
You lied about the treaty preamble. You dismissed fascist Portugal as “old news.” You pretended NATO had no role in Yugoslavia or Libya because “UN.” You reduced structural analysis to “that’s just capitalism” like the two aren’t intertwined. That’s not good faith engagement. You have only shown deflection, arrogance, and intellectual laziness.
I’m done. I don’t want to waste more time on someone who either can’t engage basic political economy or chooses not to. You’ve made it clear you’re not interested in reality, just the branding. All the best to you.
The preamble explicitly commits members to “safeguarding the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law.” Lying about an easily verifiable fact isn’t a rebuttal, it’s just embarrassing.
Maybe it’s a language barrier, but do you not understand the difference between “safeguarding the freedom and common heritage of democratic peoples” and “safeguarding the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy”?
Or is it historical ignorance, with how it is considered common knowledge that the western civilisation grew from the Ancient Greek and Ancient Roman civilisations, both famously implementing the very first democratic tools, and Europe being commonly accepted as the birthplace of democracy?
Then you don’t understand how capitalism operates at scale. Military alliances aren’t separate from economic systems, they enforce them. When NATO standardizes procurement, secures trade routes, and backs regime change, it’s not “just capitalism” floating in a vacuum. It’s capitalism with teeth.
It would only be “teeth” if NATO wasn’t a defensive alliance but rather an empire, like the USSR. Standardisation was also not done because some people wanted to enforce economic policies. It was done because the military already went through two massive wars where the lack of standardisation was causing massive logistical issues.
Again: you know nothing about what NATO is.
Portugal used NATO-supplied weapons to wage colonial war into the 1970s
NATO doesn’t “supply weapons” because NATO has no factories to build weapons. It’s a military alliance.
France used NATO intelligence in Algeria
France used French intelligence in Algeria.
Belgium used NATO logistics in Congo
Belgium relied on logistics from the US, not from NATO, in Congo. There was also a large UN contingent. UN is not NATO.
The alliance didn’t “accidentally” include fascist colonizers, it coordinated with them. That’s not a graph problem; that’s a priorities problem.
The alliance included fascist colonisers because they were in control of the military. NATO is a military alliance, it doesn’t concern itself with the economic or political systems of its members.
This is dishonest. NATO executed the Yugoslavia bombing campaign under a UN mandate. NATO led the Libya intervention under a UN mandate.
No, it didn’t. The UN resolution called for military involvement, UN member countries provided contingents. This had nothing to do with NATO other than the fact that some NATO members were included. Russia was part of these operations too.
It’s like saying “WHO executed the Yugoslavia bombing campaign” because all militaries involved were from WHO-member countries.
The Greece coup was US-backed, yes, but NATO never suspended a fascist junta that violated its own “democratic principles.”
Again: you have no clue what NATO is. It couldn’t do anything like that because it has no power over anything. It’s a defensive military alliance.
You’re splitting hairs to dodge institutional responsibility. When the alliance provides the command structure, intelligence, and logistics, it’s NATO.
Yeah, yeah. WHO was responsible for the Greece coup. Sure.
And the Marshall Plan was just generosity
What does the Marshall Plan (1947-1948) have to do with NATO (1949)?
US defense contractors didn’t lobby for NATO standardization. Congress didn’t tie aid to arms purchases
Of course the did. They’d be insane not to. But the agreement came from the fact that they had their massive actually functioning military industry behind their lobbying. It was a “smart” (and short-sighted) decision to rely on the US to this extent, but it’s not like all members states immediately copied everything the US did. France and Germany famously have their own, strong military industries.
Case in point: nobody in Europe is even considering the switch from 5.56 to 6.8x51 for infantry rifles, like the US already did, because nobody’s industry is ready to properly support that.
Europe wasn’t “naive”; it was integrated into a hierarchy that served core capital.
Explain the fact that France, Germany, and Denmark retained strong and independent military industry then.
Military power and economic power aren’t separate spheres
Correct, but NATO has no saying over economic power, and very little saying over military power. NATO is the vehicle for inter-country military cooperation, integration, standardisation. NATO doesn’t even have the ability to call any military power to action.
NATO secures the conditions for capital to operate: sea lanes, airspace, regime stability
Sea lanes and airspace, yes. It has nothing to do regime stability (as showcased by what was happening in France, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania, Turkey, Greece, Spain, Czechia, or Netherlands, with their either massive anti-government protests, or attempts at killing the democratic rule of law).
You think finance capital enforces unequal exchange by itself?
Of course it does. That’s the best possible deal for any capitalist - gain more than you’re actually paying for.
It doesn’t. It has gunboats. NATO is the gunboat coordination mechanism.
NATO cannot use “gunboats”, because NATO is not a singular entity. It’s an alliance. A member country’s military can be ordered to use “gunboats”, but that’s got nothing to do with NATO.
You lied about the treaty preamble
Again: maybe it’s a language barrier thing, but I very much did not lie.
That’s not good faith engagement
Yeah, I’m not getting on your ignorance bandwagon, how uncouth of me.
You have only shown deflection, arrogance, and intellectual laziness.
50% of the two of us are showing intellectual laziness, and it’s not me. I’m just stating facts.
I don’t want to waste more time on someone who either can’t engage basic political economy or chooses not t
You talking to a mirror right now?
All the best to you.
Likewise! I sincerely hope you get out from under the propaganda umbrella (I don’t know if it’s Chinese or russian, the effect is the same) and start perceiving reality as it is.
It literally is.
From Britannica:
That’s not imperialism, that’s just capitalism. It is tied to imperialism, because the countries with the most capital are the ones with the most imperialistic policies to boot, but what you described here is just flat out capitalism.
It does not.
Because the 1995 study found that strong democracies contributed to stable and peaceful existence. NATO member countries can promote democratic principles, but NATO itself is uninterested in the underlying system of a country because it’s a military alliance.
Portugal “contradiction” is from 1950s.
The “democracy contributes to peace” study is from 1995.
I’ll need you draw me a graph of where exactly you see a problem here.
Correct, it was a political provocation. Pointless, considering NATO was specifically designed to defend the West from russia.
Not a single person on the planet was surprised.
It would’ve been much harder to instrumentalise it if the Soviets didn’t confirm time and again, that the spending was necessary.
And, again, the spending was mostly on the side of the US. Europe was famously lacking in this regard to the point where Trump 1.0 threatened to withdraw US from NATO if the other member countries didn’t increase their spending.
That wasn’t NATO, that was the UN.
Again, that was the UN, not NATO.
Once more, not NATO. That was the US. Possibly some more member countries, but it was not NATO.
That’s not NATO, that’s capitalism and politics.
Again: you have no idea what NATO is and it painfully shows.
Compared to the ones that do? Correct.
NATO has no capability of imposing sanctions.
The ONLY “bombing campaign” by NATO was in Afghanistan in 2001 because that was the ONLY time when Article 5 was called and member-countries responded as NATO.
Again, you’re not talking about NATO, because it has no tools to do any of that. That’s just capitalism you’re angry with.
Yup. all of that is still true. Even Wikipedia would give you the basic fundamentals of why NATO cannot impose sanctions or force economic decisions on countries.
You’re just ignorant, mate. You’re angry at NATO for being what it is not, and every point you mention proves that you just don’t know what NATO is.
Read a bit, learn some, then we can talk. As is, the discussion pointless.
The preamble explicitly commits members to “safeguarding the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law.” Lying about an easily verifiable fact isn’t a rebuttal, it’s just embarrassing.
Then you don’t understand how capitalism operates at scale. Military alliances aren’t separate from economic systems, they enforce them. When NATO standardizes procurement, secures trade routes, and backs regime change, it’s not “just capitalism” floating in a vacuum. It’s capitalism with teeth.
History doesn’t expire because it’s inconvenient. Portugal used NATO-supplied weapons to wage colonial war into the 1970s. France used NATO intelligence in Algeria. Belgium used NATO logistics in Congo. The alliance didn’t “accidentally” include fascist colonizers, it coordinated with them. That’s not a graph problem; that’s a priorities problem.
This is dishonest. NATO executed the Yugoslavia bombing campaign under a UN mandate. NATO led the Libya intervention under a UN mandate. The Greece coup was US-backed, yes, but NATO never suspended a fascist junta that violated its own “democratic principles.” You’re splitting hairs to dodge institutional responsibility. When the alliance provides the command structure, intelligence, and logistics, it’s NATO.
Sure. And the Marshall Plan was just generosity. US defense contractors didn’t lobby for NATO standardization. Congress didn’t tie aid to arms purchases. This isn’t conspiracy, it’s documented policy. Europe wasn’t “naive”; it was integrated into a hierarchy that served core capital.
Military power and economic power aren’t separate spheres. NATO secures the conditions for capital to operate: sea lanes, airspace, regime stability. You think finance capital enforces unequal exchange by itself? It doesn’t. It has gunboats. NATO is the gunboat coordination mechanism.
You lied about the treaty preamble. You dismissed fascist Portugal as “old news.” You pretended NATO had no role in Yugoslavia or Libya because “UN.” You reduced structural analysis to “that’s just capitalism” like the two aren’t intertwined. That’s not good faith engagement. You have only shown deflection, arrogance, and intellectual laziness.
I’m done. I don’t want to waste more time on someone who either can’t engage basic political economy or chooses not to. You’ve made it clear you’re not interested in reality, just the branding. All the best to you.
Maybe it’s a language barrier, but do you not understand the difference between “safeguarding the freedom and common heritage of democratic peoples” and “safeguarding the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy”?
Or is it historical ignorance, with how it is considered common knowledge that the western civilisation grew from the Ancient Greek and Ancient Roman civilisations, both famously implementing the very first democratic tools, and Europe being commonly accepted as the birthplace of democracy?
It would only be “teeth” if NATO wasn’t a defensive alliance but rather an empire, like the USSR. Standardisation was also not done because some people wanted to enforce economic policies. It was done because the military already went through two massive wars where the lack of standardisation was causing massive logistical issues.
Again: you know nothing about what NATO is.
NATO doesn’t “supply weapons” because NATO has no factories to build weapons. It’s a military alliance.
France used French intelligence in Algeria.
Belgium relied on logistics from the US, not from NATO, in Congo. There was also a large UN contingent. UN is not NATO.
The alliance included fascist colonisers because they were in control of the military. NATO is a military alliance, it doesn’t concern itself with the economic or political systems of its members.
No, it didn’t. The UN resolution called for military involvement, UN member countries provided contingents. This had nothing to do with NATO other than the fact that some NATO members were included. Russia was part of these operations too.
It’s like saying “WHO executed the Yugoslavia bombing campaign” because all militaries involved were from WHO-member countries.
Again: you have no clue what NATO is. It couldn’t do anything like that because it has no power over anything. It’s a defensive military alliance.
Yeah, yeah. WHO was responsible for the Greece coup. Sure.
What does the Marshall Plan (1947-1948) have to do with NATO (1949)?
Of course the did. They’d be insane not to. But the agreement came from the fact that they had their massive actually functioning military industry behind their lobbying. It was a “smart” (and short-sighted) decision to rely on the US to this extent, but it’s not like all members states immediately copied everything the US did. France and Germany famously have their own, strong military industries.
Case in point: nobody in Europe is even considering the switch from 5.56 to 6.8x51 for infantry rifles, like the US already did, because nobody’s industry is ready to properly support that.
Explain the fact that France, Germany, and Denmark retained strong and independent military industry then.
Correct, but NATO has no saying over economic power, and very little saying over military power. NATO is the vehicle for inter-country military cooperation, integration, standardisation. NATO doesn’t even have the ability to call any military power to action.
Sea lanes and airspace, yes. It has nothing to do regime stability (as showcased by what was happening in France, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania, Turkey, Greece, Spain, Czechia, or Netherlands, with their either massive anti-government protests, or attempts at killing the democratic rule of law).
Of course it does. That’s the best possible deal for any capitalist - gain more than you’re actually paying for.
NATO cannot use “gunboats”, because NATO is not a singular entity. It’s an alliance. A member country’s military can be ordered to use “gunboats”, but that’s got nothing to do with NATO.
Again: maybe it’s a language barrier thing, but I very much did not lie.
Yeah, I’m not getting on your ignorance bandwagon, how uncouth of me.
50% of the two of us are showing intellectual laziness, and it’s not me. I’m just stating facts.
You talking to a mirror right now?
Likewise! I sincerely hope you get out from under the propaganda umbrella (I don’t know if it’s Chinese or russian, the effect is the same) and start perceiving reality as it is.
Thanks for the advice obergruppenfuhrer you definitely are perceiving reality as you run defense for the Epstein alliance 🤣 👉
Wow, you surrendered that discussion real fast and real childish! I’m actually impressed!
There’s no discussion to be had with a reichsfuhrer such as yourself I’m afraid. You simply love the Reich too much to engage in good faith.