• prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      The “it can’t happen here” mentality is so ingrained, that I feel like even many of the people who know that it is bullshit, still aren’t fully comprehending what is coming. Which I get, because it’s hard to comprehend. But boy is it frustrating.

    • DarkFuture@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 days ago

      Yup.

      In case anyone hasn’t noticed, the goalposts for norms have significantly shifted in the last decade. This is historically how it always begins.

      Buckle up. Protect yourself.

    • blue_berry@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      Yes, and if called out, they say it happens for freedom of speech, which is absurd given that the richest man on earth provides the infrastructure and has a large presence on the platform himself.

    • blue_berry@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      Yes, and if called out, they say it happens for freedom of speech, which is absurd given that the richest man on earth provides the infrastructure, (soon) influences the legislative rules and has a large presence on the platform himself.

  • Jesus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    75
    ·
    4 days ago

    These autocrats have always wanted to drop NATO.

    Let’s not pretend like X is their reason. Supporting autocracy is their reason, and now they’re trying to come up with excuses to get the public onboard.

    • seejur@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      4 days ago

      Yes, but they need to repay the rat elon for all his support during the campaign. This might even be true

      • sardaukar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        4 days ago

        You wanting the same thing JD Vance wants should trigger a warning in your brain before you say anything else.

      • perestroika@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        So, NATO had a problematic operation, trying to establish (and coordinate the establishment of) guerilla stay-behind troops to use in the event of Soviet takeover - and the operation went especially problematic in Italy during the Years of Lead, where some of those guys associated with right-wing terrorists. The year was 1969 or so.

        Basing on this, how do I conclude anything about the NATO of today?

        Disclaimer: I was asked to hold an anti NATO speech during a protest event during a NATO summit. Being a moderately honest anarchist, I held a speech denouncing the practises seen in Afghanistan (the year was 2012), but emphasized that collective self defense is a valuable thing to have (a common attitude here in Eastern Europe), and added that if the alliance would bother doing what it says on the sticker, I would support it.

        NATO is an alliance of various countries. Some of them aren’t nice or democratic (classic example: Turkey). Mixed bag, and constantly changing. Membership in NATO is not a letter of indulgence for a member state to do anything - allies are obliged to help only if someone attacks a member state. If a NATO member attacks someone else, allies can ignore the affair or even oppose the member (example: Turkey recently bombed Kurdish troops in Syria so sloppily that threatened US troops shot down a Turkish drone).

        • index@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          4 days ago

          “According to several Western European researchers, the operation involved the use of assassination, psychological warfare, and false flag operations to delegitimize left-wing parties in Western European countries, and even went so far as to support anti-communist militias and right-wing terrorism as they tortured communists and assassinated them, such as Eduardo Mondlane in 1969”

          Based on this conclude what you want about the NATO of today.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steadfast_Defender_2024

          • Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 days ago

            As if the US and a whole lot other countries are not doing Psy-Ops and other behind the scenes actions. pulling strings on the world stage.

          • perestroika@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            27
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            4 days ago

            Based on this, I conclude: the NATO of today is a mostly defensive alliance with some taints in its history.

            It is currently very busy doing a real job - opposing a conquering dictator named Vladimir Putin.

            I wish it luck, as long as it sticks to its declared purpose. If it oversteps, I will revise my opinion.

            • luciferofastora@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 days ago

              taints in its history

              Ooh, let’s play “find the dark history”! What better way to distract from today’s issues and avoid talking about solutions for tomorrow’s problem!

              This is me agreeing with you, to be clear. The description “taints in its history” is so ubiquitous as to be useless. Yes, acknowledging the errors of the past is important to learn from them and improve, but the focus needs to be on that learning and improving.

              The NATO has potential to be a force of security. In a modern world, conflict between peers is more destructive than ever and the returns on aggressive action are more strongly affected by the strength of the defense, such a union of forces can discourage attack by making it too unprofitable.

              Of course, that requires the union to actually stand united and the potential aggressor to be reasonable and motivated by the state’s prosperity. Neither of those seem entirely guaranteed right now…

            • andxz@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              4 days ago

              Your opinions are certainly grounded in reality at least. It’s refreshing to read something sensible for a change.

            • index@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              3 days ago

              It is currently very busy doing a real job

              Yes i’m sure they are doing a very busy job like they were in their tainted history (false flag operations to delegitimize left-wing parties in Western European countries)

              If it oversteps

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_Response

              “Several of the operations were along the coast in the borders between sea and land, and together with roads and populated areas. Surveillance, patrols, road control posts, vehicle inspection, control of air space, minesweeping, evacuation of civilians, and riot control were important part of the exercise.”

              • perestroika@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                3 days ago

                If you are sure about something, then bring evidence of considerable off-label activities.

                In response to your response about “Nordic Response”:

                Surveillance, patrols, road control posts, vehicle inspection, control of air space, minesweeping, evacuation of civilians, and riot control were important part of the exercise.”

                Those are realistic military duties in war time. Every military practises them. Where do you find a fault?

                An example from real life: the Ukrainian military has checkpoints on roads near the frontline. Moving with a vehicle, you’d expect to show papers, say a few words and maybe even show transported goods. The purpose? Finding reconnaisance / sabotage groups, which every competent enemy is expected to send. If an opponent doesn’t send recon or saboteurs, they are fools. If a military doesn’t learn how to deter those, they’re fools.

                How does one learn? After dry reading in a classroom: one holds an excercise. There’s a home team and an opposing team. The home team checks, the opposing team infiltrates. Both teams report what they achieved, results get compared. If the blue team found the “saboteurs”, good. If the red team “blew up” all bridges and pipelines in the area, people think hard about what they did wrong. If they don’t practise, they don’t get to think hard.

                • index@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  3 days ago

                  Those are realistic military duties in war time. Every military practises them. Where do you find a fault?

                  Where do i find a fault in conducting vehicle inspections and riot control at peace time, from an organization with a shady past involving false flag operations, psychological warfare and assassinations aimed at delegitimize left-wing parties.

                  Dunno buddy let me keep thinking

                  An example from real life: the Ukrainian military has checkpoints on roads near the frontline. Moving with a vehicle, you’d expect to show papers, say a few words and maybe even show transported goods. The purpose? Finding reconnaisance / sabotage groups, which every competent enemy is expected to send. If an opponent doesn’t send recon or saboteurs, they are fools. If a military doesn’t learn how to deter those, they’re fools.

                  The ukrainian military also have checkpoints in the west border to make sure any male between 18 and 60 doesn’t leave the country so that they can be forced into war.

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobilization_in_Ukraine

                  How does one learn? After dry reading in a classroom: one holds an excercise. There’s a home team and an opposing team. The home team checks, the opposing team infiltrates. Both teams report what they achieved, results get compared. If the blue team found the “saboteurs”, good. If the red team “blew up” all bridges and pipelines in the area, people think hard about what they did wrong. If they don’t practise, they don’t get to think hard.

                  To me this sound like military rhetoric coming from a military man. You self defined yourself as being a moderately honest anarchist, i suggest you to keep doing your anarchist readings and re-read the works of Emma Goldman and Errico Malatesta.

                  https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/emma-goldman-preparedness-the-road-to-universal-slaughter

                  https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/errico-malatesta-the-european-war-and-the-international-workers-organization

          • JeffKerman1999@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            4 days ago

            Yeah dude! Tell them! Also tell them what was the normal operations at the time! And what are Russia and China doing today!!!

  • Lord Wiggle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    3 days ago

    I believe I speak for all of us Europeans when I say he can go fuck himself while sucking off Elon’s micropenis.

  • masquenox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    So, the US wants to lose the only influence it actually has on Europe?

    I say go for it.

    • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      19
      ·
      4 days ago

      40k Us troops to stationed in Germany alone to defend Europe from Russia who is slaughtering ukrianians… Instead of you know…

      Sure US has no influence…

      How do you think it costs US taxpyer?

        • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          After war in urkaine started why did germany authorize +7k surge?

          Asking for a friend…

          So much cope and denial in this thread haha

          pathetic

          • theangryseal@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            4 days ago

            Yeah because a magic border makes it so that things don’t affect all of us. Isn’t that wonderful?

            I legit don’t understand how anyone can think so small.

            If a fire starts in a city where everyone has your attitude, how long before it all burns down?

            Whether we like it or not, borders aren’t magical lines that protect us from the damage done behind one of those lines. Humanity is responsible for the wellbeing of humanity. No silly little line is going to change that.

            Imagine the consequences we’d still be suffering (yes, we. All of us) if the US hadn’t joined in WWII.

            I honestly don’t understand how anyone can think of their fellow humans as parasites. We’re all in this together. One big ego with enough support can destroy all of our lives and throw us back into the dark ages.

            We have thousands of years of history to guide us. Look into it.

            • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 days ago

              Sure, but it’s not the US’s job to protect the world. I’m a US citizen, and I’m not a fan of us spending ~5x vs Germany on defense, especially when Germany is such an economic powerhouse in the EU.

              I would really like to cut defense spending, but for that to happen, other NATO countries need to increase their defense spending. I absolutely think we should stay in NATO (for the reasons you stated), but NATO is supposed to be an alliance, not a set of countries protected by the US. Yes, it’s in our interest to protect the EU, but it’s also in the EU’s interest to protect the US. We should have each other’s back.

              • migo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 days ago

                No, they don’t. The US military spending far outpaces any other country. The US spends more than the next 10 countries combined! You don’t “need” that much spending, but your GDP is happy for that extra trillion every year that some day will trickle down for sure wink wink.

                In summary, your rhetoric is pure propaganda of conservative talking points, unfortunately.

                • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  3 days ago

                  It’s really not.

                  While I agree we need to drastically reduce military spending, that decision has consequences. We’d need to shut down foreign bases, reduce naval presence around the globe, and increase our reliance on reserves instead of standing military. If we do that, that’ll embolden other countries (like China, Iran, and Russia) to fill that void unless other partners step up.

                  Military spending (and deficit spending in general) is a major issue I’m concerned about, and I’m unhappy with both major parties here. I like Trump’s pressure on the EU to step up their part, but I don’t like his increases to military spending. I like Biden’s and Harris focus on social programs instead of military spending, but I don’t like their lack of cuts. Neither party is actually interested in turning swords into plow shears, they just court the military industrial complex differently.

                  We need to increase taxes and cut spending, yet both parties seem to do the opposite.

      • seejur@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        The US WANTS to be in those bases because it gives them a lot of soft power in foreign relationships, and a base to project power in the part of the world.

        If the US gives up NATO, you can also kiss goodbye to any sort of influence on the European countries decision making, as well as any resemblance of military logistic in that part of the world (as well as any sales of military equipment to European countries as it’s starting to happen, with many countries investing in their own military industrial complexes). This is why in the past 50 years, regardless of the party, every single US president supported NATO regardless of spendings. It took a moron to say they want out

        • AreaSIX @lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 days ago

          The US WANTS to be in those bases because it gives them a lot of soft power in foreign relationships

          I’d say that military bases within European countries is the definition of projecting hard power. If 40 000 soldiers in a military base are called ‘soft power’, what’s hard power then? Nuking the city?

          • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 days ago

            40k really isn’t that many, especially when it comes to war. That said, those bases can likely handle a lot higher population, which would rapidly increase in wartime.