Invasion and Imperialism are not the same thing. Regardless of the morality or immorality of invasion, NATO retains its status as Imperialist via surplus extraction and exploitation of the Global South.

lmao because nato predates russia

and russia started getting into iffy wars basically at its inception

This kinda verges on anti-Russian racism, there's no analysis of why you believe this.

probably because they're an imperialist power? i don't know

You indeed do not know.

okay

The GDR indeed purged Nazis, as they were attacked by western Germany, which largely retained its Nazis.

[+] whenyellowstonehasitsday@fedia.io -7 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

So then why bring it up?

because it's the closest equivalent to nato? the us also wouldn't be allowed to join brics, if that helps de-confuse you.

Invasion and Imperialism are not the same thing.

please provide a definition for imperialism that doesn't include what russia's doing in ukraine now

This kinda verges on anti-Russian racism, there's no analysis of why you believe this.

says the one who's just been continuously stating without expounding that nato is a collection of spooky imperialist powers

You indeed do not know.

The GDR indeed purged Nazis, as they were attacked by western Germany, which largely retained its Nazis.

or don't respond to what i posted that's cool too i guess

i think it's pretty clear you don't have much of an argument here, given that this started as "nato is a protection racket" and across 6 replies you've provided absolutely nothing to support that statement past whinging

peace

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 10 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

because it's the russian equivalent to nato? the us also wouldn't be allowed to join brics, if that helps de-confuse you.

It's the Russian equivalent, you say, except the power dynamic is entirely different and CSTO isn't expanding. Interesting.

please provide a definition for imperialism that doesn't include what russia's doing in ukraine now

Export of Industrial and Financial Capital to exploited Countries to super-exploit for super-profits, like an international Capitalistic relation. You know, the standard definition Leftists follow.

says the one who's just been continuously stating without expounding that nato is a collection of spooky imperialist powers

I have explained how and why, your refusal to read is no longer my problem.

i think it's pretty clear you don't have much of an argument here, given that this started as "nato is a protection racket" and across 6 replies you've provided absolutely nothing to support that statement past whinging

Quite the contrary, your selective reading and blinders mean you can't be reached with words.

[–] whenyellowstonehasitsday@fedia.io -2 points 2 weeks ago

alright you get one more, then i kind of need to stop wasting my time with you unless you get more entertaining quickly

it's the Russian equivalent, you say, except the power dynamic is entirely different and CSTO isn't expanding. Interesting.

because nobody wants to join the alliance run by the country most likely to invade you? "russia is too disliked for their alliance to be popular" or "russia is too incompetent to run an effective alliance" is an incredible argument

why don't we ask azerbaijan and armenia how their membership is going if you're confused as to why csto is unpopular?

Export of Industrial and Financial Capital to exploited Countries to super-exploit for super-profits, like an international Capitalistic relation.

ohhhhhhh so you mean like sending in pmcs to countries in africa? or setting up debt traps for countries in africa?

I have explained how and why, your refusal to read is no longer my problem.

Quite the contrary, your selective reading and blinders mean you can't be reached with words.

literally nothing you've said has justified nato behaving in an imperialist way, other than your definition of imperialism, which includes russia and china, so good job

to paraphrase you, "membership expansion isn't imperialism", which is the only thing you've been arguing over, which is wild when the thing you're meant to be justifying is that "nato is a protection racket".

i don't think you know what a protection racket is