• interurbain1er@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    I’m mostly pro NATO but that is litteraly the worst single argument possible anyone ever made. Here’s a one word answer that totally shred its credibility: Lybia.

    It’s only for defense until we decide to invade a country… but anyway, the real strength of NATO as a weapon is political influence. It allows the US to impose their security objectives to all the other members, and currently their main competitor is China and that was transcribed into NATO’s official strategy in 2022 with the stated objective to expend into the Indian and Pacific ocean specifically to counter them.

    Can’t really expect them to like it.

    • wieson@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Lybia is not a NATO thing. UK, France and USA bombed some ships and ports in Libya, but I still remember the headlines and news that Germany didn’t want anything to do with that.

      So it was a coordinated action between some members of NATO on their own.

      • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Technically the UN Security Council, including China, asked them to do it, as a NATO operation. NATO just doesn’t have the power (or need) to force compliance from all members.

        Why was NATO was willing to intervene in Libya and not other conflicts directly related to their reason for existing? Different question.

        (It’s oil. Sweet, delicious and calorie dense oil…)