Sweden has formally joined NATO as the 32nd member of the transatlantic military alliance, ending decades of post-World War II neutrality and centuries of broader non-alignment.
NATO is strictly a defensive alliance so any power that did start WW3 would be pretty damn stupid to be aggressive against NATO. And better for everyone this way, rather than give Russia a chance to chew up Eastern Europe country by country like they tried against Ukraine, Georgia and Chechnia.
NATO is defensive only on paper. Almost all of the wars in the World right now started with invasion of NATO countries in middle east and african countries still unofficaly under collonial rule of western european countries.
This is classic case of fearmongering. Russia can’t even win a war in Ukraine, despite local support of some of the Crimean citizens and proximity to their nations. They can’t get to Sweeden by the end of this century, Meanwhile, NATO is the biggest war allience this World has ever seen and it is scary how centralized the power in the World has become and US oil companies running the whole show.
If only thing you can say to someone who is proving you wrong that they must be paid by some boogieman, you are insane. Just because I critize the government doesn’t mean I support other governments. This is some cold war type of red scare. During cold war if you speak about worker rights you are branded a communist soviet spy. Now you say that NATO is resposible for wars that they admit to, you are all of a sudden a russian bot.
It’s generally suspicious when someone with atrocious grammar and spelling says Russia isn’t a real problem, but NATO is, and then shows a fundamental misunderstanding of NATO and can’t distinguish formal NATO action from other Western military action.
When you debate grammar it shows you have no good arguments. I don’t always spell things correctly, because I am more focused on making sense, then appearance. If you understand what I mean, that is good enough for me.
I understand that Russia and NATO are both problems and I understand that NATO is obviously far more powerful and bigger. I also understand what NATO claims to be, but I also see their presence in places where legally shouldn’t be. Take Kosovo for example, by the UN it is not recognized as independent, legally it is part of Serbia and Serbia does not support NATO troops there. Legally speaking, that is an invasion. Practically NATO countries invade many Middle Eastern countries as well, they wear NATO hats when they speak of peace, but often (but not always) remove that hat when they invade other countries.
You can either accept that both NATO and countries that invade Middle East are the same countries run by the same people with same interests and same goals, making it the same thing. Or you can pretend that only what is legally defined as separate is important, but then accept that legally NATO also sometimes invades countries and were never invaded themselves, making them more offensive then defensive. You can’t have it both ways.
NATO is strictly a defensive alliance so any power that did start WW3 would be pretty damn stupid to be aggressive against NATO. And better for everyone this way, rather than give Russia a chance to chew up Eastern Europe country by country like they tried against Ukraine, Georgia and Chechnia.
NATO is defensive only on paper. Almost all of the wars in the World right now started with invasion of NATO countries in middle east and african countries still unofficaly under collonial rule of western european countries.
This is classic case of fearmongering. Russia can’t even win a war in Ukraine, despite local support of some of the Crimean citizens and proximity to their nations. They can’t get to Sweeden by the end of this century, Meanwhile, NATO is the biggest war allience this World has ever seen and it is scary how centralized the power in the World has become and US oil companies running the whole show.
You keep spewing out this Putin Propaganda, yet nobody cares since it is obviously false.
How much do you get paid by Putin?
Blink twice if your family is in danger of being pushed out of a window.
If only thing you can say to someone who is proving you wrong that they must be paid by some boogieman, you are insane. Just because I critize the government doesn’t mean I support other governments. This is some cold war type of red scare. During cold war if you speak about worker rights you are branded a communist soviet spy. Now you say that NATO is resposible for wars that they admit to, you are all of a sudden a russian bot.
It’s generally suspicious when someone with atrocious grammar and spelling says Russia isn’t a real problem, but NATO is, and then shows a fundamental misunderstanding of NATO and can’t distinguish formal NATO action from other Western military action.
When you debate grammar it shows you have no good arguments. I don’t always spell things correctly, because I am more focused on making sense, then appearance. If you understand what I mean, that is good enough for me. I understand that Russia and NATO are both problems and I understand that NATO is obviously far more powerful and bigger. I also understand what NATO claims to be, but I also see their presence in places where legally shouldn’t be. Take Kosovo for example, by the UN it is not recognized as independent, legally it is part of Serbia and Serbia does not support NATO troops there. Legally speaking, that is an invasion. Practically NATO countries invade many Middle Eastern countries as well, they wear NATO hats when they speak of peace, but often (but not always) remove that hat when they invade other countries. You can either accept that both NATO and countries that invade Middle East are the same countries run by the same people with same interests and same goals, making it the same thing. Or you can pretend that only what is legally defined as separate is important, but then accept that legally NATO also sometimes invades countries and were never invaded themselves, making them more offensive then defensive. You can’t have it both ways.
What you’re doing wrong is trying to reason with people who are just not the reasoning kind…