• flandish@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    10 hours ago

    it’s almost as if NATO exists to strengthen capitalism and its drive for profits instead of protect against attacks that were never going to happen anyway.

    • deHaga@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Funny that Sweden and Finland didn’t feel the need to join until the very attack you say didn’t happen, did

      • redditmademedoit@piefed.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        8 hours ago

        But boy what a stupid move it proved to be to join Nato in panic. Historic blunder by Finland and Sweden.

        Rescued to a sinking ship with a mad captain, where the mid-level officers are just running around in disbelief, unable to decide between doubling down on loyalty to the captain or taking command for themselves. Who will the captain shoot next? Will he shoot at all against the people he’s sworn to protect you from?

    • Foni@piefed.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      9 hours ago

      When it was created in the 1950s, the possibility of an attack was very reasonable; I’m not referring to that. What I mean is that all those advantages have never required their cost to actually be paid, not that it couldn’t eventually be paid at some point.

      I am also sure that the cost would have been paid if it had been necessary, at least for almost the entire duration of the agreement; the last 10 years may have been somewhat different.