The cognitive dissonace hits hard on this one, how dare you join a defensive pact!
this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2025
1 points (100.0% liked)
Political Memes
9772 readers
2927 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Ask Yugoslavia how "defensive" Nato is.
Do you mean Serbia, or are you just confused in general about things?
So what's your problem here exactly?
This is a counterexample of NATO being a "defensive pact".
I think that it's still defensive if they stopped ethnic cleansing once.
Nope, that's interventionism, not defense.
Also, whether or not ethnic cleansing actually happened is highly debatable. The death toll exploded after NATO started bombing.
NATO's intervention was prompted by Yugoslavia's bloodshed and ethnic cleansing of Kosovar Albanians, which drove the Albanians into neighbouring countries and had the potential to destabilize the region. Yugoslavia's actions had already provoked condemnation by international organisations and agencies such as the UN, NATO, and various INGOs.
Are we talking about this?
Where defense?
Defending people against ethnic cleansing seemed to be the goal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia#Goals
Cool motive, still interventionism. /s
Edit: That was also the official justification of Russia's invasion. I don't buy either justifications.
I don't know what that is. NATO did an intervention on the ethnic cleansing, do you mean that?
NATO sure as shit didn't defend any of their member nations. Interventionalism is when you invade a country claiming that it's "for their own good". See: Afganistan or the second Iraq war.
It did stop the ethnic cleansing though.
I'm not sure if interventionalism is another term for the same thing but interventionism is what I often see used for what you're describing.
It did stop the ethnic cleansing though.
The ethnic cleansing was just a pretence, though. Why is that so obvious when Russia claims a genocide is happening but not with NATO?
I mean the ethnic cleansing was happening and was stopped by NATO. So that's good imo
Even if NATO's intervention severely increased the death toll (including ethnic albanians) and whether or not the ethnic cleansing was actually happening is at least debatable?
I'm sure someone's going to endlessly debate it
And you just accept it. Why don't you accept Putin's justification for ivading Ukraine?
A lot more evidence to support the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo than to support ethnic cleansing in East Ukraine from what I can see
Which sources did you check? Both sides (for each conflict)?
Yeah Russia was pissed we stopped little brother Serbia from ethnic cleansing the infidels and now makes a mockery of our altruism.
Only an idiot believes they're sincere though.
The best understander of politics entered the chat. /s
Certainly have a better grasp of it than the guy who came to the conclusion that since America is bad then Putin must be good. You just have binary brain worms incapable of understanding anything more complex than a child's tv show.
the guy who came to the conclusion that since America is bad then Putin must be good.
Yeah, that guy must be very dumb... where is he, though? Haven't encountered him here yet.
Edit: Come to think of it: the opposite is quite widespread on lemmy: "Putin bad, so everyone against Russia: good"
You don't need to buy anything, you just need information literacy and critical thinking. Which is not to say you shouldn't be critical of US foreign policy - god knows there's lots to criticize. But comparing the genocide in Yugoslavia to the War in Ukraine is a clear sign of acute mental darkness or you intentionally amplifying authoritarian propaganda.
You're a loser either way because of your utter failure to take intellectual responsibility. You might be just one in a sea of millions of ignoramuses but that's not excuse
Its not critical thinking when you just parrot everything you've been told.
Exactly! You can't just assume that the situation in Ukraine is equivalent to the genocide in former Yugoslavia. As with any claim originating from an authroitarian regime, it must be evaluated critically.
Have a nice day.
You're a loser either way because of your utter failure to take intellectual responsibility. You might be just one in a sea of millions of ignoramuses but that's not excuse
So... it's ok if I disengage after that rude comment, right? Spare me your speech on "information literacy" if you're simply planning on insulting me anyways, please. Just insult me right away. That'd be at least more honest.
Indeed, giving up intellectual responsibility and promoting the propaganda of authroritarian regimes (I couldn't care less which ones you fancy in particular) should be named and shamed and ridiculed within the confines of the law.
Feel free to engage or disengage in whichver which way you want friend, couldn't care less, my messages are not directed at you
Ask Libya how defensive NATO is.
Did those countries jointly attack Libya because the NATO charter demanded it or because those countries agreed it was a good idea? Did all NATO countries join in attacking Libyan forces or just some of them? Joining NATO doesn't give the NATO alliance sole control over who you're country goes to war with.
It was a NATO-lead coalition.
You mean the action taken under a UN mandate to implement a no fly zone and protect civilians?
The destruction of the Libyan airforce so Gaddafi couldn't drop bombs on his civilian population like Assad did in Syria was a good thing that saved lives.
Unless you're a tankie who jerks it the images of schools and hospitals ripped to shred by barrel bombs.
The destruction of the Libyan airforce so Gaddafi couldn't drop bombs on his civilian population like Assad did in Syria
Brown leader inevitably bombs civilians if not for glorious white interference
good thing that saved lives.
Yeah, surely Libya wasnt catapulted into horrifying civil war that lasted decades after and killed hundreds of thousands of people in formerly the most developed country in Africa...
You're accusing me of racism but I could just as easily accuse you of thinking the only way for Africans to be properous is if they are ruled over by a strongman dictator.
The people of Libya rose up against Gaddafi in thr arab spring. The civil war had already begun.
I've seen what a barrel full of explosives and metal shrapnel does to the inside of a school classroom when dropped from a helicopter. NATO prevented that from happening in Lybia and you'll never forgive them for it.
the only way for Africans to be properous is if they are ruled over by a strongman dictator
That's only if you believe the western propaganda. [Libya had a functioning representative democracy and the role of Gaddafi is overblown. Morocco today is a monarchy and so is Saudi Arabia and I dont see you calling for the bombing of either country.
One of the cornerstones of democracy is education for everyone, and Libya had an extremely successful education system that turned Libya into one of the countries with highest education level in Africa, hardly pointing to the decisions of a dictator wanting to keep the masses oppressed.
I understand you believe Gaddafi was a bloody, ruthless, corrupt dictator, but Libya was arguably more Democratic than any country in its surroundings and the source of most claims of horrible dictatorship come from western media apparatus of "eagle burger freedom institute".
Gaddafi was bad, sure, but NATO reduced libya to a state where there's now open air slave markets.
Gaddafi doesn't seem as bad only because you have never seen published photographs of his atrocities. Extrajudicial killings, torture, public executions, political repression, and elimination of dissent. Lots of horrors that I guess are okay as long as the trains run on time.
We also don't know what a Libya where NATO didn't intervene looks like. It's not unbelievable that the civil war would've resulted in the same result but with a much higher body count.