When you debate grammar it shows you have no good arguments. I don't always spell things correctly, because I am more focused on making sense, then appearance. If you understand what I mean, that is good enough for me. I understand that Russia and NATO are both problems and I understand that NATO is obviously far more powerful and bigger. I also understand what NATO claims to be, but I also see their presence in places where legally shouldn't be. Take Kosovo for example, by the UN it is not recognized as independent, legally it is part of Serbia and Serbia does not support NATO troops there. Legally speaking, that is an invasion. Practically NATO countries invade many Middle Eastern countries as well, they wear NATO hats when they speak of peace, but often (but not always) remove that hat when they invade other countries. You can either accept that both NATO and countries that invade Middle East are the same countries run by the same people with same interests and same goals, making it the same thing. Or you can pretend that only what is legally defined as separate is important, but then accept that legally NATO also sometimes invades countries and were never invaded themselves, making them more offensive then defensive. You can't have it both ways.
bumphot
Defense alliance that invades countries in middle east.
NATO is heavily influenced by US. When they ask other countries to join, they wear a NATO hat, when they invade other countries they where their counturies independent hats that just so happens to be in NATO.
I didn't dismiss any victims. I can critique Israel's genocide of Palestinians without being anti-semetic. I can critisize Russian genocide and rape of Ukranians without being racist towards Russians. People are not the armies that claim that fight for their interests.
I never said we should let Russia annex anything, you are assuming that because I am against NATO expansion that I am pro Russia.
Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised. Regular people are always the ones that suffer, on both sides, while for the politicians it is just about profit.
Well if you don't see common western imperilism pattern, I can't help you.
You sound like more of a troll then me. I give reasonable responses, you just make jokes to insult people.
It does matter if it is my honest opinion or if I was just wrongfully accused. One would be a critique of me, another is a critique on the propaganda that anyone who disagrees with people in power must be a KGB agent.
A classic authoritarian tactic is to make people think that other governments are worse and that only giving away your freedoms and giving power to them is the way to fight it. TikTok became to risky for the government not because of China's propaganda, but because China didn't want to ban or deprioritize posts against genocide in Palestine funded by the US government. When any government feels treatened they censor the media and call it propaganda from another country. This is prime example that US is not better then China or Russia when it comes to it, only that so far it was their companies that were more popular, so they didn't need to.
Hilary was the one that got Trump elected in the primaries so she would have a better chance at winning. When Wikileaks leaked that, they bribed Ecaudor billions to get Assange in jail. Vote for Hilary is a vote for her tactics, getting worse Radical candidates and journalists reporting on it in jail.
They are not forced legally but practically indirectly. It is as voluntary as someone agreeing to landlords terms or those of your employer. Legally speaking, yes no one is forcing you, practically speaking you don't really have a choice and such a system was created on purpose so you can't have a choice. Once you start depending on US for their support in your defense, you need to scratch their back in doing an invasion or two so they keep supplying your weapons.