PATO: The Pacific and Atlantic Treaty Organization
Their cooperation is forcing NATO to build closer ties with like-minded countries in the Indo-Pacific. For the first time, senior officials from Australia, New Zealand, South Korea and Japan took part in a meeting with NATO defense ministers in Brussels on Thursday.
They baddies are “forcing” NATO into this. The poor imperial core, being dragged around again. #AlwaysTheSameMap
Citations Needed podcast: The Always Stumbling US Empire: “Stumbling”, “sliding”, “drawn into” war––the media frequently assumes the US is bumbling its way around the world. The idea that the United States operates in “good faith” is taken for granted for most of the American press while war is always portrayed as something that happens to the US, not something it seeks out.
Also, doesn’t “CRINK” already have a name, the Axis of Resistance?
Anyway, death to POTATO.
- The Intercept, 2021: Meet NATO, the Dangerous “Defensive” Alliance Trying to Run the World
- CounterPunch, 2022: NATO is Not a Defensive Alliance
- Noam Chomsky, 2023: NATO “most violent, aggressive alliance in the world”
- Thomas Fazi, 2024: NATO: 75 years of war, unprovoked aggressions and state-sponsored terrorism
You must log in or register to comment.
It’s interesting how NATO is “forced” to take action by Chinese military build-up, doesn’t leave any room for China being forced to take action by NATO’s military build-up. Reminds me of that recent video of previous NATO’s head complaining about China placing bases close to NATO, when any NATO country is thousands of km away and China is deploying near its own coast.
Those dastardly axis of evil, how dare they place their countries so close to US military bases
As if the US military build-up to encircle and “contain” China has nothing to do with it. This new cold war began in earnest with Obama’s pivot to East Asia. The US has over 750 overseas military bases, while China has one anti-piracy base in Djibouti. The rhetoric is Orwelian.
When the Russian invasion started, the US government and media stressed that it was “unprovoked” at every opportunity. The empire doth protest too much.
- NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University.
- The War in Ukraine Was Provoked—and Why That Matters to Achieve Peace
- The Ukraine Mess That Nuland Made Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland engineered Ukraine’s regime change without weighing the likely consequences.
- Leaked audio reveals embarrassing U.S. exchange on Ukraine, EU
- US Imperialism and the Ukraine Coup
- Former German Chancellor Merkel Admits that Minsk Peace Agreements Were Part of Scheme for Ukraine to Buy Time to Prepare for War With Russia
- Zelensky admits he never intended to implement Minsk agreements
- The West’s Sabotage of Peace in Ukraine In May of [2022] Ukrainian media reported that then-British prime minister Boris Johnson had flown to Kiev the previous month to pass on the message on behalf of the western empire that “Putin is a war criminal, he should be pressured, not negotiated with,” and that “even if Ukraine is ready to sign some agreements on guarantees with Putin, they are not.”
I like how Pakistan is striped as if they didn’t just throw away billions of dollars of chinese investments for some IMF loans because the US told them to lol.
Also Afghanistan being green which actually happened right before Pakistan’s thing
EDIT: Also India which always gets refused US arm tech sales because they exclusively buy from Russia lol. It’s like enemy of my enemy but also friend of my other enemy.
To be fair I nabbed the map from a 2017 article: https://web.archive.org/web/20181022074308/https://www.gisreportsonline.com/opinion-military-situation-heats-up-on-chinas-perimeter,defense,2166.html
My tired brain looked at the thumbnail and thought that CRINK was some new onomatopoeia for wine glasses being tapped together
Ah yes, gotta lick those authoritarian dictator boots. So cool, so cool.
You should change your nickname to “SardaukarBootcampSergeant” or something with how you always defend the empire.
Which empire am I defending?
If only we had access to everything you’ve ever said on Lemmy. Oh wait, we do.
The one that didn’t collapse in a pile of vodka and shame.
It’s criticizing NATO. The biggest boot. Your masters have you so turned around you think it’s anti-authoritarian to defend NATO.
This cold war joke is just as applicable today.
A KGB spy and a CIA agent meet up in a bar for a friendly drink.
“I have to admit, I’m always so impressed by Soviet propaganda. You really know how to get people worked up,” the CIA agent says.
“Thank you,” the KGB says. “We do our best but truly, it’s nothing compared to American propaganda. Your people believe everything your state media tells them.”
The CIA agent drops his drink in shock and disgust. “Thank you friend, but you must be confused… There’s no propaganda in America.”
Ah yes, gotta lick those Global North neocolonial imperialist boots. So cool, so cool.
Why would you support any side if you know both are inherently bad?
Two things can be bad without being bad in the same way or at the same scale.
The Imperial core—which claims to be the model for and bringer of freedom and democracy—is far worse by comparison. Its actions over generations belie its words: it doesn’t give a rat’s ass about anyone’s freedom. Those not its core values; those are its excuses, its rationalizations, its cover story for imperialism, for “full-spectrum dominance.” They’re a neocolonial re-branding of the old colonial “bringing Christianity/civilization to the savage races” rationalizations.
Just one small example. The National for Endowment for Democracy isn’t about promoting democracy. It’s a CIA cut-out for enacting regime changes. Take it from Allen Weinstein, cofounder of the NED, “Much of what we do today was done 25 years ago by the CIA.”
The blueprint of regime change operations
Our governments and corporate media don’t tell us about the plight of Iranian women because they give a shit about them, or because it’s exceptionally bad. They don’t care about Iranian women any more than the Palestinian women they’re aiding & abetting the genocide of. Women’s rights in Saudi Arabia are arguably even worse, but the media aren’t going to talk about their plight, because our governments consider Saudi Arabia aligned with their interests. “National interests” aren’t our interests: they’re the interests of the capitalist class. The enemies of my government, which has only ever represented the wealthy[1], are not necessarily my enemies.
First of all sorry for any spelling error or smth, english is not my native language and i struggle a lot to express 😅
I kind of understand your way of reasoning in this affair, you seem to apply the principle of the lesser of two evils and i don’t deny that NATO is by far worse than their enemies, but then wouldn’t liberals also be in the right when they support the “lesser of two evils”?.
In any case i don’t find correct to support any side but the working class , and let me tell you that i don’t think that the Russian, Chinese, Iranian, … , goverment care about them more or less than the west care about the working class, after all they’re still capitalist countries.
I just think is kinda dummy to support this or that side of the bourgeoisie just because it opposes the one you hate the most.
Again sorry if it’s weirdly written haha.
First of all sorry for any spelling error or smth, english is not my native language and i struggle a lot to express 😅
Your English is better than some native English speakers.
Russia & Iran are inarguably also capitalist; this is true*. I’ll save everyone the copypasta and just link to what I’ve said before about imperialist capitalist states vs anti-imperialist/imperialized capitalist states.
*Not only do almost all liberals consider China capitalist, but also most Western socialists. But not all. Yes, China has billionaires, but unlike in capitalist states, the capitalist class does not have control of the Chinese state. Again I’ll spare everyone and just link.
And so what if they can’t lay hands upon the Chines state?, they still exist and for a billonarie to exists poor people willing to sell their work force for an unfair wage has to exist.
I’ll admit that i’m not that educated in the actual state of the People’s Republic of China, but If the so called Chinese Communist Party allows them to exploit the working class, it would make me think that they’re working in a capitalist frame, maybe with some more left leaning policies, but still not in a socialist state, nor nothing else.
And i know that they’ve engaged in this neo-liberal state so they could develop faster and at some point reach communism, but i still can’trust trust it.
About Russia and Iran i know the fight between the imperialist core and the one that wants to take their place is beneficial, i don’t find it relevant taking sides in their fight.
i don’t find it relevant taking sides in their fight.
“Taking sides” is a bit oversimplified. “Critical support” isn’t a matter of undying devotion, or a matter of having a favorite a sports team. And unless I’m doing something in the material world, it doesn’t even matter what “side” I’m on, because it has no effect.
In real-world terms at the moment, it means participating in anti-war protests in the country where I live. There’s obviously nothing I can do about Russia’s or Iran’s flaws: I simply don’t live in those places, or even speak their languages, so I can’t effect change really at all.
I kind of understand your way of reasoning in this affair, you seem to apply the principle of the lesser of two evils and i don’t deny that NATO is by far worse than their enemies, but then wouldn’t liberals also be in the right when they support the “lesser of two evils”?.
Without touching the rest of it, the idea is not to support the lesser evil, but to support what is historically progressive despite its negative elements. If two things are both a net bad but there is a lesser evil, it is generally a better answer to support neither.
All of the “CRINK” countries have negative elements – particularly Russian chauvinism and Iranian theocracy – but the Axis of Resistance’s overall operations tend towards multilateral internationalism rather than domination by a single superpower like NATO favors.
P.S. as davel said, your English is great
Every real county or “side” has good and bad qualities. But they can stand on different sides of historical development and trajectories due to their sociopolitical composition.
For example, every communist recognizes that the state is inherently oppressive. So why use it? They also know it is a necessary tool for the historical development against capitalism, against rule by the owner class. One should not come away with the idea that all states are always equally bad, or solely do bad things, just because we acknowledge they are inherently oppressive. A state that functions against rule by the owner class and can adopt coherent anti-imperial stances is much better than one that is premised on global domination and extraction for the owner class.
Re: this issue, consider just 2 points:
-
What has NATO actually materially engaged in? Escalations and aggressive bombing campaigns and expanding their scope to include militarizing the opposite end of the planet. The purpose of NATO is to maximally pressure its designated enemies, including nuclear powers. It’s purpose is also to create the designation of enemy.
-
Compare India to China. India choseca milquetoast “socialist” but rapidly capitalist non-aligned path while China, for all its faults, continued a path where its central government retained power over the commanding heights if its economy, in directing production. India is languishing, with extreme poverty and a large (often self-hating) neofascist takeover. It cannot progress substantially because it is a lapdog for empire, it sells out its people for nothing. China, for all its faults, redirects its surpluses into things that build up its people and economy. The vast majority of every, “the world is getting better” statistic describing anything real - like poverty alleviation - is China itself. And the rest depended on Chins for development.
-
“US bad, mmm’kay”
See the funny thing is, I can point out that you’re kissing autocrat ass without having to lick any imperial Western boots or whatever.
All I have go do is recognize that you’re kissing autocrat ass. I don’t have to take any position beyond pointing out that you’re kissing autocrat ass.
You should do less kissing autocrat ass.
Donny, you’re out of your element.
Just as a heads up, we don’t like horseshoe theory here, which “authoritarian” falls under. Please refrain from horseshoe theory posting.
Also, factually, China isn’t a dictatorship. They follow a proletarian democratic model that is significantly distinct from bourgeois democratic models.
Hold up - the terms “authoritarian” and “totalitarian” are banned in this community? I have to admit, I think that is an absolutely absurd rule that can only stand to benefit the far-right. Are there alternative terms which are preferred without the ideological baggage outlined below, or are we just meant to not criticise far-right regimes which exert extreme control over their citizens by use of the “””rule of law”””?
think that is an absolutely absurd rule that can only stand to benefit the far-right.
Lol no you can still call fascists fascists. We are just asking you to use more accurate language.
Oh please, you can’t just decide that a term falls under a theory you disagree with and then disregard it out of hand.
The term “authoritarian” might be used in horseshoe theory but it is not defined by horseshoe theory. The term has its own meaning independent of horseshoe theory.
You’re just playing Calvinball to redefine and then exclude words you don’t like.
When people say authoritarianism it is reliably synonymous with totalitarianism as defined by Hannah Arendt, which is basically horseshoe theory, where fascism and communism are equivalated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism#Examples
There is no one consensus definition of authoritarianism, but several annual measurements are attempted, including Freedom House’s annual Freedom in the World report. Some countries such as Venezuela, among others, that are currently or historically recognized as authoritarian did not become authoritarian upon taking power or fluctuated between an authoritarian, flawed democracy, and hybrid regime due to periods of democratic backsliding or democratization. Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia are often regarded as the most infamous examples of “totalitarian” systems. Some countries such as China and various fascist regimes have also been characterized as totalitarian, with some periods being depicted as more authoritarian, or totalitarian, than others.
Hannah Arendt came from a wealthy family and was unsurprisingly anti-communist. Her work was financially supported and promoted by the CIA. The CIA and the Cultural Cold War Revisited
U.S. and European anticommunist publications receiving direct or indirect funding included Partisan Review, Kenyon Review, New Leader, Encounter and many others. Among the intellectuals who were funded and promoted by the CIA were Irving Kristol, Melvin Lasky, Isaiah Berlin, Stephen Spender, Sidney Hook, Daniel Bell, Dwight MacDonald, Robert Lowell, Hannah Arendt, Mary McCarthy, and numerous others in the United States and Europe. In Europe, the CIA was particularly interested in and promoted the “Democratic Left” and ex-leftists, including Ignacio Silone, Stephen Spender, Arthur Koestler, Raymond Aron, Anthony Crosland, Michael Josselson, and George Orwell.
The authoritarian states are whichever states the Council on Foreign Relations deems authoritarian this month. It just means “governments that Global North capitalists want regime changed,” and that’s usually because the authoritarian government is blocking their access to neocolonial profit-making.
Hey, you don’t have to agree, you just have to follow the rules of the community.
Oh please, you can’t just decide that a term falls under a theory you disagree with and then disregard it out of hand.
The incredible irony that they’re doing this because they dislike the name authoritarian…
