cross-posted from: https://piefed.social/post/1363168
this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2026
516 points (94.3% liked)
YUROP
698 readers
115 users here now
Welcome to YUROP
The Ultimate Eurozone of Culture, Chaos, and Continental Excellence
A glorious gathering place to celebrate (and lovingly roast) the lands, peoples, quirks, and contradictions of Her Most Magnificent Europa. From the fjords to the Med, the steppes to the Atlantic spray, this is a shrine to everything that makes Europe gloriously weird, wonderfully diverse, and occasionally passive-aggressive in 24 languages.
Here we toast:
🇪🇺 The progressive Union of Peace (and paperwork)
🧀 The freest of health care
🍷 The finest of foods
🏳️🌈 The liberalest of liberties
🌍 The proud non-members and honorary cousins
💶 And the eternal dance of unity, confusion, and cultural banter.
Post memes, news, satire, linguistic wars, train maps, cursed food photos, Eurovision fever, propaganda and whatever makes you scream “only in YUROP.”
Leave your stereotypes at the border control and enjoy the ride.
founded 9 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It literally is.
From Britannica:
That's not imperialism, that's just capitalism. It is tied to imperialism, because the countries with the most capital are the ones with the most imperialistic policies to boot, but what you described here is just flat out capitalism.
It does not.
Because the 1995 study found that strong democracies contributed to stable and peaceful existence. NATO member countries can promote democratic principles, but NATO itself is uninterested in the underlying system of a country because it's a military alliance.
Portugal "contradiction" is from 1950s.
The "democracy contributes to peace" study is from 1995.
I'll need you draw me a graph of where exactly you see a problem here.
Correct, it was a political provocation. Pointless, considering NATO was specifically designed to defend the West from russia.
Not a single person on the planet was surprised.
It would've been much harder to instrumentalise it if the Soviets didn't confirm time and again, that the spending was necessary.
And, again, the spending was mostly on the side of the US. Europe was famously lacking in this regard to the point where Trump 1.0 threatened to withdraw US from NATO if the other member countries didn't increase their spending.
That wasn't NATO, that was the UN.
Again, that was the UN, not NATO.
Once more, not NATO. That was the US. Possibly some more member countries, but it was not NATO.
That's not NATO, that's capitalism and politics.
Again: you have no idea what NATO is and it painfully shows.
Compared to the ones that do? Correct.
NATO has no capability of imposing sanctions.
The ONLY "bombing campaign" by NATO was in Afghanistan in 2001 because that was the ONLY time when Article 5 was called and member-countries responded as NATO.
Again, you're not talking about NATO, because it has no tools to do any of that. That's just capitalism you're angry with.
Yup. all of that is still true. Even Wikipedia would give you the basic fundamentals of why NATO cannot impose sanctions or force economic decisions on countries.
You're just ignorant, mate. You're angry at NATO for being what it is not, and every point you mention proves that you just don't know what NATO is.
Read a bit, learn some, then we can talk. As is, the discussion pointless.
The preamble explicitly commits members to "safeguarding the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law." Lying about an easily verifiable fact isn't a rebuttal—it's just embarrassing.
Then you don't understand how capitalism operates at scale. Military alliances aren't separate from economic systems, they enforce them. When NATO standardizes procurement, secures trade routes, and backs regime change, it's not "just capitalism" floating in a vacuum. It's capitalism with teeth.
History doesn't expire because it's inconvenient. Portugal used NATO-supplied weapons to wage colonial war into the 1970s. France used NATO intelligence in Algeria. Belgium used NATO logistics in Congo. The alliance didn't "accidentally" include fascist colonizers, it coordinated with them. That's not a graph problem; that's a priorities problem.
This is dishonest. NATO executed the Yugoslavia bombing campaign under a UN mandate. NATO led the Libya intervention under a UN mandate. The Greece coup was US-backed, yes, but NATO never suspended a fascist junta that violated its own "democratic principles." You're splitting hairs to dodge institutional responsibility. When the alliance provides the command structure, intelligence, and logistics, it's NATO.
Sure. And the Marshall Plan was just generosity. US defense contractors didn't lobby for NATO standardization. Congress didn't tie aid to arms purchases. This isn't conspiracy, it's documented policy. Europe wasn't "naive"; it was integrated into a hierarchy that served core capital.
Military power and economic power aren't separate spheres. NATO secures the conditions for capital to operate: sea lanes, airspace, regime stability. You think finance capital enforces unequal exchange by itself? It doesn't. It has gunboats. NATO is the gunboat coordination mechanism.
You lied about the treaty preamble. You dismissed fascist Portugal as "old news." You pretended NATO had no role in Yugoslavia or Libya because "UN." You reduced structural analysis to "that's just capitalism" like the two aren't intertwined. That's not good faith engagement. You have only shown deflection, arrogance, and intellectual laziness.
I'm done. I don't want to waste more time on someone who either can't engage basic political economy or chooses not to. You've made it clear you're not interested in reality, just the branding. All the best to you.
Maybe it's a language barrier, but do you not understand the difference between "safeguarding the freedom and common heritage of democratic peoples" and "safeguarding the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy"?
Or is it historical ignorance, with how it is considered common knowledge that the western civilisation grew from the Ancient Greek and Ancient Roman civilisations, both famously implementing the very first democratic tools, and Europe being commonly accepted as the birthplace of democracy?
It would only be "teeth" if NATO wasn't a defensive alliance but rather an empire, like the USSR. Standardisation was also not done because some people wanted to enforce economic policies. It was done because the military already went through two massive wars where the lack of standardisation was causing massive logistical issues.
Again: you know nothing about what NATO is.
NATO doesn't "supply weapons" because NATO has no factories to build weapons. It's a military alliance.
France used French intelligence in Algeria.
Belgium relied on logistics from the US, not from NATO, in Congo. There was also a large UN contingent. UN is not NATO.
The alliance included fascist colonisers because they were in control of the military. NATO is a military alliance, it doesn't concern itself with the economic or political systems of its members.
No, it didn't. The UN resolution called for military involvement, UN member countries provided contingents. This had nothing to do with NATO other than the fact that some NATO members were included. Russia was part of these operations too.
It's like saying "WHO executed the Yugoslavia bombing campaign" because all militaries involved were from WHO-member countries.
Again: you have no clue what NATO is. It couldn't do anything like that because it has no power over anything. It's a defensive military alliance.
Yeah, yeah. WHO was responsible for the Greece coup. Sure.
What does the Marshall Plan (1947-1948) have to do with NATO (1949)?
Of course the did. They'd be insane not to. But the agreement came from the fact that they had their massive actually functioning military industry behind their lobbying. It was a "smart" (and short-sighted) decision to rely on the US to this extent, but it's not like all members states immediately copied everything the US did. France and Germany famously have their own, strong military industries.
Case in point: nobody in Europe is even considering the switch from 5.56 to 6.8x51 for infantry rifles, like the US already did, because nobody's industry is ready to properly support that.
Explain the fact that France, Germany, and Denmark retained strong and independent military industry then.
Correct, but NATO has no saying over economic power, and very little saying over military power. NATO is the vehicle for inter-country military cooperation, integration, standardisation. NATO doesn't even have the ability to call any military power to action.
Sea lanes and airspace, yes. It has nothing to do regime stability (as showcased by what was happening in France, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania, Turkey, Greece, Spain, Czechia, or Netherlands, with their either massive anti-government protests, or attempts at killing the democratic rule of law).
Of course it does. That's the best possible deal for any capitalist - gain more than you're actually paying for.
NATO cannot use "gunboats", because NATO is not a singular entity. It's an alliance. A member country's military can be ordered to use "gunboats", but that's got nothing to do with NATO.
Again: maybe it's a language barrier thing, but I very much did not lie.
Yeah, I'm not getting on your ignorance bandwagon, how uncouth of me.
50% of the two of us are showing intellectual laziness, and it's not me. I'm just stating facts.
You talking to a mirror right now?
Likewise! I sincerely hope you get out from under the propaganda umbrella (I don't know if it's Chinese or russian, the effect is the same) and start perceiving reality as it is.
Thanks for the advice obergruppenfuhrer you definitely are perceiving reality as you run defense for the Epstein alliance 🤣 👉
Wow, you surrendered that discussion real fast and real childish! I'm actually impressed!
There's no discussion to be had with a reichsfuhrer such as yourself I'm afraid. You simply love the Reich too much to engage in good faith.