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.
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.