robinnn [he/him]

like “NATO is inherently escalatory”, with no further explanation on why banding together against an aggressor to preserve everyone’s peace is somehow “escalation” while publicly plotting attacks against all your European neighbours

Operation Gladio (support for Nazis and other far-right groups in Turkey, West Germany, Greece, etc., use of false-flag terrorism and propaganda to rig elections in Italy to prevent the rise of communist countries that would align with the Soviets), Libya (bombing of innocents and destruction of the country, support for racist mercenaries who later brought back the open slave trade), participation in the brutal imperialist bombing of Afghanistan, this is the history of NATO’s “preservation of peace.” NATO is an organization created to maintain Western supremacy, and to act like it’s simply a “defensive alliance” “banding together against an aggressor” is fundamentally dishonest nonsense. Who is not thinking (let alone critically)?

As others in the comments have shown, Angela Merkel already admitted peace agreements were made to stall and arm Ukraine against Russia, so who is “publicly plotting attacks against European neighbors”?

When were they damaging paintings prior?

You’re a fucking idiot, and show us your haircut

“No longer”?

Woah so sigma

Man, why are there so many Nazis in Ukraine?

The same way Ukraine forgot to ask the families of Jewish people killed in the Holocaust if they could put up statues and monuments commemorating Nazi collaborators including OUN members who participated in carrying out the Holocaust?

Ukraine is bombing the country that invaded them

Wait Russia invaded Ukraine? Why would they do that? And Ukrainian bombing came second, right, and the invasion first?

And yet, still the largest source of methane emission.

They also have the largest population. Per-capita they are not the largest source. It’s ridiculous to evaluate countries’ outputs without regard for the size of their populations.

As a product they can sell. Let’s not pretend like this has some altruistic motivation.

That’s true, and yet they also chose to massively subsidize their solar industry in order to meet climate goals.

Where is “the bad shit that China has done?” You still haven’t said anything about this.

The UN can’t enforce anything unless it’s against a US enemy state.

Notice that point from “The Hill” has no examples or evidence. It’s not relevant; they were citing the examples given not the author’s out-of-the-blue conclusion (which can be chalked up to the counter-bias that was the reason it was cited). I have another comment on this post proving that the far-right is not “still on the fringe.”

Quoting Internationalist 360° as a reliable source isn’t going to win anyone over.

Oh, I see the issue: you don’t understand how sources work. They’re not citing Internationalist 360° as a reliable source by itself—if you would’ve read until the end of the article you would’ve seen that the author provided a list of sources used. The article is simply a summary of the history using those sources.

Please tell me about “Chinese imperialism.” I’d love to hear about how Chinese investment in Africa, the only FDI with a positive impact on development, is “imperialism.” I’d love to hear how the PRC’s claim to Taiwan, despite being accepted by nearly every country on earth and recognized by the UN (and favored upon by the majority of Taiwanese despite no clear support for total reunification, hence its not happening yet when China could conceivably force it upon the population), the US admitting that their cynical support for separatism is only to keep the PRC down, is “imperialism,” and in fact Taiwan is an independent state with no relation to China (despite its constitution being the Constitution of the Republic of China, and its president the president of the Republic of China, with the so-called ROC claiming sovereignty over all of the mainland of China, Outer Mongolia, and Russia—see the emblem of the ROC Marine Corps).