Not sure why you’re including an exercise as “proof” of NATO being “pro-war” but ok. Especially one performed in response to Russian aggression. I do know why, it’s because you’re grasping at straws.
These missile strikes in Yemen weren’t NATO, and were a justified defense against attacks on cargo ships regardless.
And then a wikileaks link with nothing of substance.
So you’ve got nothing to justify such a ridiculous claim, even when given 20 years to go back to.
Do you think Russia is an aggressor/pro-war imperialistic country?
Open and read the links instead of skipping them and perhaps you will understand and get a better picture of what nato is and what they do. What you are dismissing as “vague hereditary claims” are court cases in italy.
Not sure why you’re including an exercise as proof of NATO being “pro-war” but ok.
Practicing war and wasting billions in doing it through all the year to me enter in the definition of being pro-war or i’m gonna assume during these exercises they practice hugging and making peace with each others.
Missile strikes in Yemen weren’t NATO, and were justified defense against attacks on cargo ships.
Not NATO but a coalition of countries members of NATO which means that if the houthis attack them back they are attacking NATO…
And then a wikileaks link with nothing of substance.
“Nothing substance” that points out yet another wrongdoing of an organization you are claiming to be good.
I didn’t claim “everything NATO ever did is good”, nothing meets that standard. You’re the one still failing to prove they’re “pro-war” and dodged the question about Russia. Nice try vatnik.
Fun Fact, a NATO response requires all of its members to fight together as one. The Yemen strikes was an operation supported by 8 of its members, not by NATO. In much the same way, US invasion of Iraq was not a NATO response and in fact several NATO members condemned it when Bush attempted to invoke article 5 after the World Trade Center was destroyed, but I still think that would have been a much better citation for you to use.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steadfast_Defender_2024
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_missile_strikes_in_Yemen
https://wikileaks.org/wiki/Wikileaks_cracks_NATO’s_Master_Narrative_for_Afghanistan
Not sure why you’re including an exercise as “proof” of NATO being “pro-war” but ok. Especially one performed in response to Russian aggression. I do know why, it’s because you’re grasping at straws.
These missile strikes in Yemen weren’t NATO, and were a justified defense against attacks on cargo ships regardless.
And then a wikileaks link with nothing of substance.
So you’ve got nothing to justify such a ridiculous claim, even when given 20 years to go back to.
Do you think Russia is an aggressor/pro-war imperialistic country?
Open and read the links instead of skipping them and perhaps you will understand and get a better picture of what nato is and what they do. What you are dismissing as “vague hereditary claims” are court cases in italy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trials_and_allegations_involving_Silvio_Berlusconi#Propaganda_Due_(P2)_trial:_False_testimony_(1989)
Practicing war and wasting billions in doing it through all the year to me enter in the definition of being pro-war or i’m gonna assume during these exercises they practice hugging and making peace with each others.
Not NATO but a coalition of countries members of NATO which means that if the houthis attack them back they are attacking NATO…
“Nothing substance” that points out yet another wrongdoing of an organization you are claiming to be good.
I didn’t claim “everything NATO ever did is good”, nothing meets that standard. You’re the one still failing to prove they’re “pro-war” and dodged the question about Russia. Nice try vatnik.
Fun Fact, a NATO response requires all of its members to fight together as one. The Yemen strikes was an operation supported by 8 of its members, not by NATO. In much the same way, US invasion of Iraq was not a NATO response and in fact several NATO members condemned it when Bush attempted to invoke article 5 after the World Trade Center was destroyed, but I still think that would have been a much better citation for you to use.