It stands for “North Atlantic F***ing Organization,” okay?

Source: I asked our fellow liberal and queen Hillary Clinton but this has nothing to do with that, so just trust me bro

Edit: Clarified since some people interpreted it much worse than I intended. I’m very sorry about that.

    • HakFoo@lemmy.sdf.org
      11·
      10 months ago

      I like “floundering”. I suspect NATO and equivalent organizations have a message problem.

      Part of the reason BRICS seems to be gaining momentum is that it seems to be establishing a community of near-equals, with a message of cooperative prosperity. That’s appealing for countries trying to advance and gain global respect.

      Any relationship with Washington is going to be vassalism-oriented; even if you’re all the right things ethnically and socially (see Australia) Buy the expensive gear, join the sanctions party, send a few of your own into the next unwinnable war against an abstract concept, but don’t expect to say much at the discussion table.

      This is probably why arrangements like NATO and various “let’s box in China” blocs seem to be the way the US operates-- they can focus on a perceived military threat, and use the “we’re spending 4x your GDP on military hammers alone” card to claim an excessive mandate.

      The weak spot is that the message tanks during peacetime. Would anyone be interested in joining NATO if Russia hadn’t been reboogeymanned over the last 15 years?

      • KiG V2
        7·
        10 months ago

        “Unwinnable war against an abstract concept” and the hammers line are bangers too 🫡