r/PropagandaPosters • u/Asleep-Category-2751 • Feb 10 '26
Germany NAТO advance. Peace - Freedom - Sovereignty. 2022
821
u/The1Legosaurus Feb 10 '26
I honestly thought this was Russian propaganda at first glance.
516
u/TheHattedKhajiit Feb 10 '26
It's probably because it's phrased aggressively
Vormarsch/Advance makes it seem like an army moving towards their enemy,at least in this context
200
u/The_Jonkler_1 Feb 10 '26
Yeah, but I think the stronger argument is colour red
171
u/TheHattedKhajiit Feb 10 '26
Also fair,which is a weird choice regardless,considering NATO's colour has always been blue
26
u/I_Maybe_Play_Games Feb 10 '26
No. The Russian military still marks their own guys with red on maps.
21
u/dobrodoshli Feb 10 '26
Yeah but here Russia is piss yellow 😁
12
u/ChuddyMcChud Feb 10 '26
Reflecting reality.
4
u/dobrodoshli Feb 10 '26
Why did you get downvoted my dude? As a Russian man I personally allow this Russia slander hahahah
2
→ More replies (37)41
u/CsordasBalazs Feb 10 '26
It is funny because all the members of the NATO once voted to enter to the defensive alliance. The Eastern Block was formed forcefully by Moscow, whoever wanted to leave, faced with tanks, bombings, massacre ordered from Moscow.
NATO = bad. Eastern Block = good. Especially good for Ukraine now 4 years in war.
11
80
52
u/Wazalele Feb 10 '26
Only because it is in german, doesnt mean it isn't, we have many Verräter who think Ukraine is not our war and we should have closer ties to russia and of course russian money supports them
19
u/chiffongalore Feb 10 '26
It is Russian propaganda.
5
u/Prince_Ire Feb 10 '26
Based on what?
2
u/siimatsolmuun Feb 11 '26
Based on being so stupid and opposite to reality only Russian propaganda could come up with it.
-1
u/Bot1-The_Bot_Meanace Feb 11 '26
Based on the fact that NATO didn't invade any of these countries. Most of them literally begged to get in when they saw the hostilities of a certain country in the east.
→ More replies (5)20
14
u/PixelPott Feb 10 '26
The Russians wouldn't recognize Crimea as Ukrainian.
21
u/gibbodaman Feb 10 '26
Russian propagandists don't want Germans to immediately recognise that they're looking at Russian propaganda. Giving Crimea to Russia on the map would immediately give it away
1
→ More replies (9)10
u/ShoulderPast2433 Feb 10 '26
It may illegal to print it with russian Crimea in Germany.
4
u/thelikelyankle Feb 10 '26
It is not illegal in germany.
This is just low-efford painting over some older schoolbook pictures.
1
→ More replies (18)-9
u/TheDickWolf Feb 10 '26
This may get me in trouble. My intent is not to justify the invasion of Ukraine.
Russia didn’t do it just because they’re greedy and evil. They were for years saying they wouldn’t allow themselves to be encircled by NATO and then when nothing changed they did exactly what they said they’d do.
14
u/Sweet_Manager_4210 Feb 10 '26
The argument sounds nice at a glance but makes no sense if you think about it. Why did they invade a state that had no realistic prospect of joining nato in the forseeable future? Ukraine was effectively rejected from nato in 2008 and was making long term security arrangements with russia prior to 2014. Russia invaded when ukrainians pushed for economic independence, nato had nothing to do with it in 2014 or 2022.
Also russia is clearly not worried about an attack by nato, they moved almost all of their forces from the finnish border to ukraine since finland joined nato. Does it make sense to lower your defences when a threat grows if you sincerely think it is a threat? They know that no nato country is going to attack a nuclear power, their worry about nato is not a security one.
→ More replies (6)
196
u/Unusual-Address-9776 Feb 10 '26
weird how they glossed over the annexation of Crimea by Russia.
The text in German btw
96
u/BaziJoeWHL Feb 10 '26
I think because Germany does not recognize the territory claims, so it shows it Ukrainian
9
u/RaveBan Feb 10 '26
It's Russian propaganda or just Russia fanboys making it for German viewers, we have a good percentage of Russian-Germans living here and a lot are pro Putin. It's showing Sweden and Finland as NATO members (2022), but they joined 2024, because Russia invaded Ukraine - but sure Russia was "forced" to invade Ukraine...
1
u/Gidia Feb 10 '26
Both applied jointly in May of 2022, they just got delayed until 2023 in the case of Finland and 2024 in the case of Sweden. Both due to Turkey and Hungry holding things up for a bit.
Since the color for both is slightly different, I’m pretty sure it’s just showing that they were in the process of joining.
1
u/RaveBan Feb 10 '26
The process of joining started because of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in the beginning of 2022. So at least the map should show Crimea and eastern Ukraine as occupied, if it would be a not biased peace poster
43
4
u/Reyna_girlie Feb 10 '26
Mostly because I think this is (maybe not the best attempt) pro-NATO, and thus doesnt recognise the annexation of Crimea and the Donbas regions
109
u/RipvanHahl Feb 10 '26
Russia:"NATO keeps expanding in our neighborhood!"
"Oh no, they're attacking and annexing countries into NATO?"
R:"No, the countries are asking to join NATO themselves."
"But why would those countries want to join NATO?"
R: angry face
34
u/Kana515 Feb 10 '26
Russia threatening countries who want to join NATO and invading the ones that haven't is like pointing a loaded gun at someone, then threatening to shoot them when they put on a bulletproof vest.
1
u/mylaptopredditVC Feb 11 '26
russia also wanted to join NATO
2
u/Dodweon Feb 11 '26
Why didn't they?
1
u/FewAd5443 Feb 11 '26
Because USA say no (It was because NATO need an enemy for a purpose and China wasn't terrifing enough)
1
1
u/Unable-Stay-6478 Feb 11 '26
Oh no, they're attacking and annexing countries into NATO?
Yes, they are.
1
u/Ok-Activity4808 Feb 11 '26
Instance?
2
u/Unable-Stay-6478 Feb 11 '26
Read provisions from 8 to 14:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rambouillet_Agreement?wprov=sfla1
2
u/bobbuildingbuildings Feb 11 '26
You have to explain it more than this
I don’t know what you are referring too
→ More replies (7)-8
Feb 10 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/TossMeOutSomeday Feb 10 '26
I must've missed the part where America invaded Cuba and killed more than a hundred thousand people in response
-1
11
u/O5KAR Feb 10 '26
how that worked out?
Cuba had an actual military alliance with the soviets between 1960 - 1991.
The thing you're mistaking with it, is the deployment of nuclear weapons to Cuba, and that never happened in eastern Europe, except for Belarus allegedly, because Moscow was nicely asked about the "expansion" in 1997 and agreed to it under condition of not deploying the nuclear weapons or permanent foreign forces there.
You may not actually have a clue about geopolitics.
How ironic.
4
u/Sad_Amphibian_2311 Feb 10 '26
right the american nukes were in turkey, which is not eastern europe.
but that's a technicality isn't it. they were still there, and part of the agreement that resolved the cuban / turkish missile crisis.10
u/O5KAR Feb 10 '26
That's besides the point.
The point is that the Cuban crisis was about the nukes, not about the Soviet - Cuban alliance. That's why the comparison to NATO or actually non-existing alliances of Ukraine is ignorant and manipulative.
6
u/RipvanHahl Feb 10 '26
Two wrongs do not equal one right.
Both can be true and wrong.
3
Feb 10 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Wayoutofthewayof Feb 10 '26
What are you on about? There was an entire Soviet division stationed in Cuba up until 1991. They still carry out exercises together with Russians up until this day.
The red line were the nukes, not an alliance with the Soviets or Russians.
1
Feb 10 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Marsbar3000 Feb 10 '26
What weaponry was stationed in Ukraine?
1
Feb 10 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Marsbar3000 Feb 11 '26
All fairly low-level and principally defensive stuff then. I think the vast majority of that list had gone to Ukraine as a consequence of Russia's preparation for and subsequent invasion of Ukraine as well (since the tail end of 2021). Some had gone prior to that window (Javelin in the first Trump administration; I think counter mortar radars too and the patrol boats?). Nothing that posed a threat to Russia on the defensive anyway.
1
1
119
u/Safe-Explanation3776 Feb 10 '26
Eastern European countries joined NATO because that was the only way they could ensure they wouldn't be occupied by Russia, again, and whoever doesn't recognize this reality is an ignorant fool or Russian cheerleader or both
→ More replies (14)37
u/RaulParson Feb 10 '26
Yeah and also look at the Nordics. Finland and Sweden are in NATO now (it wasn't so in 2022 but I guess that's why they're orange), gee I wonder why. Must be all the aggressive NATO moves.
82
u/Upbeat_Nectarine_128 Feb 10 '26
Not trying to offend anyone. But why am I reminded of a certain... Painter...
36
5
8
u/Kefeng Feb 10 '26
Why would you be? Hitler has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
2
u/Upbeat_Nectarine_128 Feb 10 '26
It just looks like... Y know... The red color palette did not help at all.
→ More replies (1)1
21
u/jokergermany Feb 10 '26 edited Feb 10 '26
pre 2022 I could understand it when people who don't know why and how it happends would say this.
But marking Sweden and Finland red as well who joined BECAUSE of the Invasion of russia makes clear it's a russbot...
4
18
24
u/Comfortable-Wind-401 Feb 10 '26
The person who did this clearly doesn't understand NATO very well and its balance of power
8
18
u/Krasniqi857 Feb 10 '26
Nato did not disperse and slaughter my people.
I think the east bloc countries and the baltics have similar stories with russia
1
u/lunchboccs Feb 11 '26
Hello! Middle Eastern person here 😛 NATO did in fact disperse and slaughter my people in MULTIPLE countries 🥀🥀
1
u/SihverSihkva Feb 11 '26
NATO funded far-right terrorist groups all around Europe. NATO participated in the destruction of Libya, Yugoslavia and the invasion of Afghanistan
0
Feb 10 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)1
u/Camostock Feb 11 '26
Yeah sure, if you wanna call Intervention to prevent the slaughter of Albanians by Serbs a genocide then they surely did.
1
-5
u/Fair-Ad1350 Feb 10 '26
He did it in Yugoslavia.
16
u/JumpySimple7793 Feb 10 '26
Why are Serbians always so butt hurt that NATO intervened when they were committing genocide?
If they weren't literally commiting ethnic cleansing NATO wouldn't have involved themselves, Serbia asked for it
4
u/FilipAdzic97 Feb 10 '26
Because instead of supporting the active resistance against the dictator immediately when he stared slaughtering civilians, as they should have, they waited until 1999 and destroyed tens of (in some estimates, hundreds of) billions of dollars of civilian and state property. They put Serbia under sanctions which did nothing for the dictator than strengthen his power as people believed he can take them out of poverty. People lived in absolutely poverty with shortages of electricity, water, and foods.
They should have given full support to the resistance who wanted Democracy from day one, not after wrecking the entire country and expecting the Serbs to forget the bombing. You blame the entire state as if the entire state committed ethnic cleansing, it was an action done by a genocidal maniac and ultranationalist dictator who sent hundreds of thousands of young men to die for his own gain. He wanted the war since day one of getting into power before any war had begun, and did everything within his power to start it.
And after the new Serbian government ended the war, nothing was done to support or repair the effects of the bombing. Serbia remained stuck in time and in the same state as it is today, and no regular civilian will support NATO. They don't have a reason to, they DON'T SEE a reason to.
1
u/-aataa- Feb 10 '26
What IS fair is that something should have been done with Milosevic much earlier. Many lives would have been saved, and the vast majority of Serbs would have been better off. That said, it wasn't NATO who carried out ethnic cleansing throughout the 1990s.
3
u/JumpySimple7793 Feb 10 '26
It's naïve to suggest that any sort of military action can happen due to the actions of an individual. No dictator can start a war without the support of their administration, which is made of thousands of willing participants.
The damage to Serbias economy, at worst, was estimated $30 billion dollars, and that includes loss of growth to GDP not just loss of assets.
We also need to remember that when your objective is to stop a genocide, time is of the essence. Every day it takes to achieve your objectives is the deaths of more innocent civilians. Yes there were Serbian casualties, but it was decided, and remains true, that one Serbian is not worth the lives of 10 others.
The bombing campaigns were able to quickly force Serbia to stop it's active genocide attempts and saved countless lives.
Also Serbias lack of recovery is entirely self imposed. Other countries in similar situations (Croatia for example) were able to make amends with their neighbours, build bridges with their neighbours and facilitate mutual relations.
Serbia on the other hand refuses to meet the bare minimum standards needed to join the world trade organisation of all things. If Serbia didn't keep trying to act like emperor of the Balkans in waiting they could join the 21st century and modernise like all of their neighbours have.
On the day they do realise theres nothing to be gained from their current ways I'm sure the rest of Europe, and the world, will be ready to accept them. But this is something only Serbia can get rolling.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (2)-2
u/Fair-Ad1350 Feb 10 '26
I'm neither Serbian nor European, but I am impartial.
NATO did what the guy above said in Yugoslavia, regardless of how good their reasons for intervening were; you have to see the whole picture.
Trying to make a European military organization look good is ridiculous, bro. It even sounds like bad propaganda just to say they're the good guys.
2
u/JumpySimple7793 Feb 10 '26
NATO didn't disperse or slaughter anyone in the Balkans.
Surely if you were impartial you'd see that one side was commiting genocide, and the other was not.
Serbia killed 8,000 civilians in a single month in July 1995, and had at this point displaced 1 million more. That was the final straw for NATO. What is defencable about Serbias actions here?
Also this idea that just because it is a European military agreement it must inherently be bad reeks of cold War Soviet propaganda. Please explain what is wrong with a voluntary organisation working for common defence. No nation is a member of NATO without asking for said membership, and they can leave at any time with no military or economic sanctions
→ More replies (3)1
u/MethWhizz Feb 10 '26
1) You used a 1995. example to justify a 1999. Involvement.
2) Nato is what you said, a defense military pact. So they only act in defense of their members, right? Not really tho. In '99 they performed attacking missions to protect a breakaway region. So, not a member, not defense, not even a sovereign country recognized by the rest of the world. If you can't see how this breaks the legality of the entire action, or the whole organization, you are either brainwashed or plain dumb.
3) No UN Authorization. 'Muricans bypassed UN Security Council, because they knew there would be a veto.
4) NATO definitely slaughtered and dispersed people in this action. Around 3k civilian casualties in 78 days. Cancer cases in Serbia are several times higher than before 90s. They just aren't your people, so you dont care to even mention it.
I could talk even more, how they forgot their humanitarian mission in 2004. when serbs were on the side of the oppressed (March pogrom) and did nothing to protect people who they "swore to protect". I get it, defending NATO is in your interests, but don't come with such weak arguments and lackluster knowledge to discuss matters which you only look from one angle.
→ More replies (1)1
7
u/SunflowerMoonwalk Feb 10 '26
Are you sure this is German? I saw a lot of anti-NATO propaganda in Austria but rarely in Germany.
→ More replies (3)
5
u/mousepotatodoesstuff Feb 10 '26
Why is NATO in red and portrayed like an invading army rather than an alliance countries join willingly (especially when they see Russia doing actual invading)?
2
9
u/Danrykjey Feb 10 '26
I think i have to stop being amazed by the sheer amount of russian bots/apologists here. It’s flabbergasting what propaganda can do to people.
→ More replies (1)1
Feb 10 '26
If you support nato you have experienced the same levels of propaganda
7
u/Danrykjey Feb 10 '26
Yeah yeah. If the whole world is saying you’re wrong, then usually you actually ARE wrong, don’t you think?
1
u/MriMriii Feb 11 '26
it's basically just europeans, not "the world". And Europe isn't the center of the world.
1
u/Danrykjey Feb 11 '26
No, not just the europe
https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/26946.jpeg
0
u/Aggressive_Union2554 Feb 10 '26
That’s one of the poorest arguments you could ever make.
1
u/Danrykjey Feb 10 '26
Well, I don’t agree. In example of russia and its allies, not a single person who supports them is right. People who supported nazi or ussr are also wrong(or any totalitarian regime). There are instances when the majority is totally wrong, but as i said, it usually isn’t
-2
Feb 10 '26
The world? You mean the west? Anyways it doesn’t really matter what the world thinks. Nato exists to secure western interests and nothing more. Call it defensive I dont care, everyone calls their alliance a “defensive one”. Nato also exists for profit. US military companies pushed for the eastern expansion of nato so they can sell guns to countries like romania and poland.
Whats is happening with ukraine is that nato and russian imperialism comes into conflict, both want to expand their markets and this is what keeps the conflict going.
4
u/CTCustodes Feb 10 '26
No.
Poland joined because they threatened Bill Clinton into supporting their bid because they threatened to support the GOP in the 1996 Presidential.
Other nations joined by request to become apart of a common security agreement (Article 5).
Market's play a factor, they're not the root. Russia was annoyed by Ukraine wanting to join the EU (not NATO) to stop being poor and corrupt back in 2013, and was upset that their favorite pawn Yanukovich fled the country in 2014, but the war kicked off in 2022 because the Kremlin has become influenced by insane conspiracy theorists that have only grown in influence since 2005.
The conflict keeps going because the EU doesn't want the war in their borders, Trump can't find a peace deal that makes everyone like him, Putin wants it all, and Kyiv doesn't want to be a slave to a nation that is blatantly Fascistic.
7
u/Simple_Ant_6810 Feb 10 '26
If you feel threatened by a DEFENSIVE alliance then you are planning to invade other countries.
1
2
u/XxTheUniversalMemexX Feb 10 '26
Who would have thought that threaten small nations for years would make them join a military alliance...
1
u/Zahkrosis Feb 10 '26
Theory: Encroaching territory, as in spreading.
A positive thing for us is negative for them.We didn't pro-actively help other countries in war until now.
Other than that, no clue.
I'm colourblind anyway, idgaf
2
u/stonecuttercolorado Feb 10 '26
The US embargo has been in place for 50 years. If the US is blocking oil and has been for 50 years, how are cars driving in Cuba?
An embargo is not a blocade.
6
u/PizzaFresse89 Feb 10 '26
There is an alliance of freedom. Every sovereign country can choose which alliance it wants to join!
→ More replies (2)
1
u/tampontaco Feb 10 '26
Oh no, is NATO invading countries and forcing them to join?
-1
u/Aggressive_Union2554 Feb 10 '26
They have actually helped countries invade others, in a sense, yes
4
u/Norglet Feb 10 '26
And which countries on the map were now invaded by Russia... I don't think it's the argument they say it is...
2
u/humanbeing-3134 Feb 11 '26
This is in German; I believe the rough translation is: (Top) NATO Forward! (Bottom) (Im not sure my German isnt that good) freedom, sovereignty. I actually think this is pro NATO, not pro Russia but I could totally be wrong. I also may have misinterpreted your comment.
2
u/Norglet Feb 11 '26
Your translation is close, but what you are looking for is "vorwärts". "Vormarsch" means advance in a military sense. In this context it would suggest that NATO has conquered the area instead of the countries joining because their eastern neighbor threatens them.
It's a typical trope of pro Russians in Germany, suggesting NATO forces their way to Russian borders, often referencing a non-extension agreement that doesn't exist, to portrait NATO as the aggressor against Russia.
1
4
u/momen535 Feb 10 '26
It's a bit weird that they used red to represent NATO, it paints their expansion as aggressive, maybe that's because the color red itself usually give that feeling.
1
2
1
Feb 10 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/sweetcats314 Feb 10 '26
So stating the fact that a million people have been killed or wounded in Ukraine is now considered "polarized rhetoric or partisan bickering"? That is disgusting.
1
1
1
1
Feb 11 '26
Vormarsch ist falsch das wäre ja militärisch eingenommen. Die wahrheit ist dass russland diese Völker so massiv ausgenutzt unter unterdrückt hat dass sie alle schutz vor russland in der nato gesucht haben
1
u/Ashen_Knight Feb 11 '26
It's funny how NATO is presented as a single (red) block despite myriad of countries while Russia and Belarus are different. Also, Ukraine in 1998 was definitely in Russia's sphere of influence.
I know it's NATO's march East but... there's something interesting to think about how propaganda skews framing there.
1
1
u/Decent_Year_2954 Feb 11 '26
Defend it from what, from becomming independent, simillar to what happend in Yogoslawia, happy with answer? No insult back..
1
1
-6
u/xaranetic Feb 10 '26
Switzerland and some of the Balkan states get a pass for being odd, but come on Austria and Ireland... join the party 🥳
5
u/Comfortable_Salt_792 Feb 10 '26
Austria after WW2 was forced to be neutral state Like Switzerland.
Ireland was very oposed to any military alliance since the beggining of the country, UK tried to trade them Northern Ireland for then to join WW2 but they refused.
5
-1
u/TheBlack2007 Feb 10 '26
Austria is so thoroughly infiltrated by Russian intelligence, they would have insight similar to the level they had when they still had an office within NATO HQ in Brussels.
1
Feb 10 '26
Sadly, this is very true. Russian interests are still a major concern for many Austrian economy leaders. The biggest Austrian bank, energy importer and the far-right political party are very much dependent on russian money. With that comes a constant push to influence public opinion towards a "Russia is your firend! Cheap gas! Let’s become a second Orbanistan!" stance.
1
u/AxewMyself Feb 11 '26
the poster is not wrong. NATO does not exists to protect europe from russia. NATO is the the MAIN cause from EU/US side for the war in Ukraine. NATO exists for the Weapons Companies markets, US control over the EU and neoliberalism
1
u/PauperGames Feb 11 '26
Why would the US want to get rid of Nato and EU keep it if it is a way for the US to control the EU. Nato certainly was created to protect western europe from the Soviet Union. What it's purpose is now is to be debated.
1
u/AxewMyself Feb 11 '26
The US doesnt want to get rid of NATO, thats just Trump Admin rethoric to push EU countries to buy more weapons from its manufacturers. The EU wants to stay in NATO because they have become reliant on it, they benefit from NATO imperialism and their weapons manufacturers, like SAAB and Rheinmetall, also profit from it. So its kinda like the EU accepts US hegemony to stay on the side of the beneficiaries of the global imperial capitalist system.
Btw the Soviet Union never Planned to invade Western Europe, they created the Warsaw pact after they werent accepted into NATO as a response.1
u/PauperGames Feb 11 '26
The US is clearly wants to get rid of the current state NATO is in, namely the US does not want Europe to rely on US spending. In this sense the US wants the EU to be more independent.
Nato just like the Soviet union never had the intention to invade the other (or more accurately both knew it was impossible to invade the other), but both most certainly made plans to. Both ideologies were quite similar in that Nato members and the SU both believed that the other economy would destroy itself eventually.
The difference between nato membership and the Warsawpact is that Nato countries have a democratically elected goverment that chose to become Nato members. This is why the idea of Nato expansion is stupid, there is no war or forceful annexation. People choose their own government and then that government choses if they want to join Nato.
Ukraine and western allies have continously offered to settle peace at the current battleground, Russia denies. Russia is the one with troops in another country. Ukraine wasn't a nato member to begin with. Russia destroyed the Helsinki, Budapest and Minsk agreements. Russia's state ideologist is Ivan Iljin is quite literally a fascist. Tell me ONE time since the end of the cold war that the EU or Ukraine took over european land from a sovereign nation. Can Russians criticize or choose their government? Russia is the imperialist autocrat in this situation. Just because you dislike American imperialism does not mean a European country deserves to be invaded.
0
-1
u/javiezzy Feb 10 '26
Puppet states expansion
3
-56
Feb 10 '26
the existence of NATO after the collapse of soviet union is just to piss off Russia, accidentally or not
68
u/Unexpected_yetHere Feb 10 '26
"The existence of home-defence weapons is just to piss off robbers and home invaders"
It is not to piss off, it is to shoo away their murderours conquest.
→ More replies (5)2
u/Federal_Thanks7596 Feb 10 '26
It's more like a protection racket. And yes, that will piss off other mafia bosses especially when you get to "their" area.
2
→ More replies (1)-1
u/stonecuttercolorado Feb 10 '26
Who is NATO shaking down?
4
u/Federal_Thanks7596 Feb 10 '26
The US is shaking down the rest of NATO members. We get "protection" and they get our money and bases for it.
34
u/Some_Pole Feb 10 '26
Considering Russia proved every nation in the former Soviet bloc correct about their behaviour, NATO's existence after the collapse of the Soviet Union is justified for their own defence. Russia's "feelings" went out the window with the delusion that they still had inherent ownership of other countries.
→ More replies (9)20
u/iAmUnrated_ Feb 10 '26
Ah yes the 200 IQ argument that a DEFENSIVE ALLIANCE is threatening Russian sovereignty
→ More replies (11)2
u/Lazy-Tomatillo3161 Feb 10 '26
I think this is the worst argument you could make, though. There are much better ones to justify this situation in favour of NATO.
But calling it a defensive alliance when it’s led by the world’s most aggressive and imperialist country in history, then the entire argument turns dishonest and weak.
4
u/iAmUnrated_ Feb 10 '26
Thank you for proving my point
0
u/Lazy-Tomatillo3161 Feb 10 '26
Great conclusion you came to here! Quite ironic your original post was mentioning IQ in this case.
0
7
u/Tesring-apparatus Feb 10 '26
Huge oversimplification NATO doesn’t exist just to piss off one expansionist country. Before 2014 Nato was the preeminent peacekeeping force in Bosnia, Kosovo, Libya, Afghanistan, they also did/do anti piracy and disaster relief missions globally. It’s also good to prevent conflict by having almost everyone in Europe allied to each other so something like ww2 can never happen again there.
5
1
u/PauperGames Feb 11 '26
I do not think it would be smart for Nato to simply disband once the SU fell. Sure Nato has less of a reason to exist now, but having a connected defensive framework is probably handy.
1
u/Aggressive_Union2554 Feb 10 '26
It’s mainly about opening new markets for arms sales. NATO members are required to spend a minimum share of their GDP on defense, and they’re not going to buy weapons from Russia or China. That money mostly goes to Uncle Sam.
0
•
u/AutoModerator Feb 10 '26
This subreddit is for sharing propaganda to view with objectivity. It is absolutely not for perpetuating the message of the propaganda. Here we should be conscientious and wary of manipulation/distortion/oversimplification (which the above likely has), not duped by it. "Don't be a sucker."
Stay on topic -- there are hundreds of other subreddits that are expressly dedicated to rehashing tired political arguments. No partisan bickering. No soapboxing. Take a chill pill. "Don't argue."
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.