PATO: The Pacific and Atlantic Treaty Organization
Their cooperation is forcing NATO to build closer ties with like-minded countries in the Indo-Pacific. For the first time, senior officials from Australia, New Zealand, South Korea and Japan took part in a meeting with NATO defense ministers in Brussels on Thursday.
They baddies are “forcing” NATO into this. The poor imperial core, being dragged around again. #AlwaysTheSameMap
Citations Needed podcast: The Always Stumbling US Empire: “Stumbling”, “sliding”, “drawn into” war––the media frequently assumes the US is bumbling its way around the world. The idea that the United States operates in “good faith” is taken for granted for most of the American press while war is always portrayed as something that happens to the US, not something it seeks out.
Also, doesn’t “CRINK” already have a name, the Axis of Resistance?
Anyway, death to POTATO.
- The Intercept, 2021: Meet NATO, the Dangerous “Defensive” Alliance Trying to Run the World
- CounterPunch, 2022: NATO is Not a Defensive Alliance
- Noam Chomsky, 2023: NATO “most violent, aggressive alliance in the world”
- Thomas Fazi, 2024: NATO: 75 years of war, unprovoked aggressions and state-sponsored terrorism
First of all sorry for any spelling error or smth, english is not my native language and i struggle a lot to express 😅
I kind of understand your way of reasoning in this affair, you seem to apply the principle of the lesser of two evils and i don’t deny that NATO is by far worse than their enemies, but then wouldn’t liberals also be in the right when they support the “lesser of two evils”?.
In any case i don’t find correct to support any side but the working class , and let me tell you that i don’t think that the Russian, Chinese, Iranian, … , goverment care about them more or less than the west care about the working class, after all they’re still capitalist countries.
I just think is kinda dummy to support this or that side of the bourgeoisie just because it opposes the one you hate the most.
Again sorry if it’s weirdly written haha.
Russia & Iran are inarguably also capitalist; this is true*. I’ll save everyone the copypasta and just link to what I’ve said before about imperialist capitalist states vs anti-imperialist/imperialized capitalist states.
*Not only do almost all liberals consider China capitalist, but also most Western socialists. But not all. Yes, China has billionaires, but unlike in capitalist states, the capitalist class does not have control of the Chinese state. Again I’ll spare everyone and just link.
And so what if they can’t lay hands upon the Chines state?, they still exist and for a billonarie to exists poor people willing to sell their work force for an unfair wage has to exist.
I’ll admit that i’m not that educated in the actual state of the People’s Republic of China, but If the so called Chinese Communist Party allows them to exploit the working class, it would make me think that they’re working in a capitalist frame, maybe with some more left leaning policies, but still not in a socialist state, nor nothing else.
And i know that they’ve engaged in this neo-liberal state so they could develop faster and at some point reach communism, but i still can’trust trust it.
About Russia and Iran i know the fight between the imperialist core and the one that wants to take their place is beneficial, i don’t find it relevant taking sides in their fight.
i don’t find it relevant taking sides in their fight.
“Taking sides” is a bit oversimplified. “Critical support” isn’t a matter of undying devotion, or a matter of having a favorite a sports team. And unless I’m doing something in the material world, it doesn’t even matter what “side” I’m on, because it has no effect.
In real-world terms at the moment, it means participating in anti-war protests in the country where I live. There’s obviously nothing I can do about Russia’s or Iran’s flaws: I simply don’t live in those places, or even speak their languages, so I can’t effect change really at all.
I kind of understand your way of reasoning in this affair, you seem to apply the principle of the lesser of two evils and i don’t deny that NATO is by far worse than their enemies, but then wouldn’t liberals also be in the right when they support the “lesser of two evils”?.
Without touching the rest of it, the idea is not to support the lesser evil, but to support what is historically progressive despite its negative elements. If two things are both a net bad but there is a lesser evil, it is generally a better answer to support neither.
All of the “CRINK” countries have negative elements – particularly Russian chauvinism and Iranian theocracy – but the Axis of Resistance’s overall operations tend towards multilateral internationalism rather than domination by a single superpower like NATO favors.
P.S. as davel said, your English is great
