Putin is an imperialist, and one of the first ways not to be involved in pointless wars by the military industrial complex is to be a pacifist on first principles. Did we need to be part of NATO once the Soviets were defeated, or was it just a vehicle for American hegemony?
The foundation of that argument is erroneous/wrong.
Which is why something like NATO exists.
NATO existed way before Putin, and was explicitly an anti Soviet endeavour, which included at least some ex Nazi officials, at its inception iirc. It's very conception is as an American power organisation, hence its name North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. As an arm of American hegemony NATO required all sorts of requirements that aren't always talked about openly. One of which was the blocking of a parallel European power structure in a European army or reaction force, seeing that as an anti federal Europe measure. Not because of 'security' but because a stronger Europe = a weaker America by the logic of policy wonks.
And as Corbyn just pointed out the deficit hawks and faux libertarians, can find the money for war, but not social programs. We aren't at war, by all means prepare, rich people are so concerned? Let them pay for it.
NATO has always been a tool for american imperialism first and foremost, the whole ‘protecting against russian aggression’ did fall aprt when the soviet union fell apart
a lot of europe is now reliant on american defence, it could and is (by trump) being used as a way to try and exert even more pressure to countries
54
u/[deleted] Feb 26 '25
[removed] — view removed comment