#anti-NATO

[thererisesaredstar]

New label on old merchandise (1959)

[radicalgraff]

"No Base, No NATO"

Mural against the proposed new military base in Coltano, Italy

[degeneratedworker]

'Who is preventing peace in Korea?' German Democratic Republic 1952

[lgbtally4ever]

[immaculatasknight]

Firming Solidarity

[big-bird-nerd]

I feel like it’d be useful for people to understand the difference between ethnicity, nationality, and race when it comes to understanding global politics. In particular, remembering that race was invented by white people to justify their systemic oppression and exploitation of ethnic and national minorities; you’ll rarely if ever find a non-white group using race-based ideology to justify its own systemic oppression and exploitation since race as an ideology is fundamentally built on enslavement of Black people, colonial violence against Africans, Asians, Indigenous Americans, and Slavs, and disenfranchisement of immigrants (who more often than not are forced into immigration due to colonial violence). The only way a non-white group can functionally make ideological use of race to justify its own oppression and exploitation is if they can integrate into whiteness, which in most cases is impossible since whiteness is hostile to non-white groups. The only way it can work in that case is to work directly with the ‘white’ nations for the oppression of one’s own nation, usually to attain some degree of privilege with their oppressors.

Why is this important to understand? Because there is an organization that for all intents and purposes, systematizes who is allowed to be ‘white’ or a white-ally and who isn’t; NATO. To use an example, Slavs are often dicey on whether they are considered white or not, usually in modern contexts being considered white, but this is not historically true, particularly in America where whiteness was a defined legal institution which did not include Slavic ethnicities or nationalities. Why were they not considered white? First, understand that whiteness defines a social relation of exploitation, with ‘white’ exploiting ‘non-white.’ Largely because the US was in constant conflict with countries of the Warsaw Pact through NATO during the Cold War, wanting to exploit the land, resources, and people of those countries, which are largely Slavic in ethnic composition. Thus, when the USSR collapsed and NATO expanded to include countries of the prior Warsaw Pact, these ethnicities and nationalities became integrated into the social construct of whiteness, that is to say, they began taking part in the neocolonial attacks on Africa and Asia alongside the white nations.

All of this is to say; whiteness is a social construct that defines relations of exploitation between ethnic and national groups. With NATO as the current primary global body that exploits the third world, NATO is the ultimate entity which defines which groups are white and which groups are not, which enacts white nationalist violence on a global scale. By extension, those countries which want to join NATO must be understood as looking to be integrated into whiteness, and thus, to take part in the oppression and exploitation of non-white people. Anyone seeking to deconstruct systemic racism must understand that NATO is the largest embodiment of systemic racism on the global scale, and by extension must be deconstructed as part of the battle against white nationalism and colonialism.

[nando161mando]

It's the new "I'm not racist but..."

[relaxedstyles]

[olekciy]

    A short reminder that Russia is imperialist, has been imperialist for a long time, and there's no way around that fact.

Sections of the Western left have developed a narrative according to which Russia has been gradually surrounded by NATO and that supposedly "provoked" Putin. It's increasingly difficult to sustain the notion that Russia is simply "defending itself" after 24 February 2022, but the thing is - the invasion did not come out of the blue. One needs a different narrative to understand what Russia actually is: an aggressive imperialist power alongside other imperialisms.

So, a different narrative:

- 1994: Russia, with US support, acquires Ukrainian nuclear arsenal in exchange for the assurances to respect Ukraine's territorial integrity

- 1997: Russia acquires the Sevastopol naval base and almost all of the ships (82%, to be exact)... in exchange for the assurances to respect Ukraine's territorial integrity!

- 2004: Russia meddles in Ukrainian presidential elections, fighting hard to force an undemocratic fraudulent outcome, but fails

- Mid-to-late 2000s: As punishment for Ukraine electing Yushchenko, Russia uses energy blackmail, a form of economic coercion not very different from the IMF and World Bank lending and conditionality

- 2008: NATO refuses to adopt a roadmap towards Ukraine's membership and in effect postpones the decision indefinitely. Ukraine's security is in no way guaranteed, while Russia has already demonstrated the propensity to use coercion to force Ukraine to do its bidding

- 2009: Dmitry Medvedev, then president, writes to Yushchenko that "Russia does not pose and cannot pose any kind of threat to Ukraine", so seeking NATO membership is stupid. Yea, sure

- 2014: Russia, which "does not pose and cannot pose a threat to Ukraine"... annexes Crimea. Really, Dima?? I thought you were for real??

Of course, by annexing Crimea Russia not only makes all the previous statements that it "can never pose a threat to Ukraine" a ridiculous lie, but also breaks the 1994 memorandum and 1997 treaty. "We are the Kremlin. Our word is worth nothing"

- Crimea's annexation provokes armed separatism in Donbas that Russia supports and coordinates, including direct military command and control, and then completely subordinates Donbas "authorities", in effect occupying the region

- Ukraine's still not in NATO, its security is still in no way guaranteed, and the supplies of US weapons only begin in 2018. They are kept to a minimum... out of fear of provoking Russia!

- Nevertheless, on 24 February 2022 Russia launches a full-scale invasion to establish 100% control over all of Ukraine in one way or another. There is literally no military development on the ground that could have provoked the invasion. On Russia's part, it's a war of choice in exactly the same way the invasion of Iraq was a war of choice for the US in 2003.

Now, this is only the general outline. One should add Russia's drowning of Ukraine with spies and agents of influence, money to corrupt Ukrainian politicians and massive acquisition of Ukrainian assets to impose economic and political dependency.

These are well-known facts, but so many on the left refuse to see the story behind them. It's a story of decades of imperialist aggression, culminating in a war that cost 150,000 lives in 2022 alone. Any discussion of left-wing internationalism should begin with recognizing the reality of what Russia is and what it did.

[chdkz-veteran]

btw when I was there in 2021 the internal hall and museum add already been enriched by an exhibit about the so-called “ATO in Donbass” with banderite and azovite paraphernalia.

The Ukrainian authorities gave official permission for the decommunization of the sculpture "Motherland" in Kyiv. A trident will appear on the shield, which is raised over the Ukrainian capital by a giant female figure, instead of the coat of arms of the Soviet Union." - BBC Russia

i was hoping this would escape the recent wave of iconoclasm, but evidently post-soviets can't create anything of their own, they know only how to destroy.

[rotteneldritchhorror]

I do love... that the most celebrated assassination attempt (on trump) and THE most celebrated SUCCESSFUL assassination (of the uhc ceo) all were done by people who's social media presence were found immediately and all discovered to have fucking incoherent political stances lol

[radicalgraff]

Graffiti seen in Chania, Crete, home to a NATO base

[scarlethyena]

"NATO is a defensive organization!! All member states agree to join it!" Yes, I'm sure bombing Yugoslavia and brutally overthrowing the Libyan government were both purely defensive actions.

[astrolegal]

In imperialist wars of aggression, neutrality is always pro-aggressor.

It's okay to be anti-war, but don't let it get to the point where you oppose an independent nation defending its sovereignty.

[immaculatasknight]

Selective advocacy