Sweden has formally joined NATO as the 32nd member of the transatlantic military alliance, ending decades of post-World War II neutrality and centuries of broader non-alignment.
There is this wikipedia article with a list of all the countires in the world with their military presence outside of their countries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_overseas_military_bases
You can google for each of these countries as well, such as France and their presence in Africa, as well as other “past”-colonial forces, US with their presence in Kosovo, Turkey with their presence in a lot of Balkan countries (also previous colonies of Ottoman empire).
There is a lot of countries in the World that where past colonies that never got rid completly of their imperialist rulers. In fact during cold war they made an alliance just for that, that is where the term third world comes from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World
Obviously imperialist didn’t like that and the media propaganda changed the meaning of that term to the “developing country” to excuse them staying there while they “develop”. Never actually leaving of course.
You’re conflating a lot of topics in your discourse but you clearly don’t understand what you are talking about. Yes, many countries have military bases overseas. That is not controversial or new. They are used as means to expediently deploy troops and assets to various global positions. The fact that some of these countries happen to be part of NATO has nothing to do with your previous position.
It is more then just having a base. They often run the whole country. I simply tried to find a single list for all of it, but if you look into these cases, one by one, you can see what I mean.
Take French troops in Africa, they are collonizers that never left and their government can’t kick them out. Take NATO troops in Kosovo, they are completley dependent on US support to exist. Or Israel as well. Or many other places in Middle East. These are not volontery military presence in these locations, they are invasions which people can’t get rid of, either under threat of antoher force taking over or because they just wont leave.
You’re doing it again and at this point it feels intentional. You’re taking five different things that are unrelated and mixing them but throwing enough vague terms hoping that something will stick:
French troops in Africa
Nato in Kosovo
Or Israel (whatever that means)
Or many other places in middle east (whatever that means)
Not defending the probable Russian shill, but Wikipedia is a pretty reliable source. What it is not is a primary source. But every claim has a source whose reliability can be assessed (and what counts as reliable is going to vary from person to person). So, no, if I’m writing an essay or a formal document, I’m not going to cite Wikipedia. But if I’m arguing with strangers on the internet, Wikipedia is a fairly credible place to start backing up your claims.
You can say that for literarly anything. Wikipedia has sources for every claim. Are you dispututing that NATO was in those countries. I have seen some of those troops in those countries with my own eyes.
They are not independent, that is the point. NATO military is still present in most of them or have puppet governments or are still at war.
Source?
There is this wikipedia article with a list of all the countires in the world with their military presence outside of their countries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_overseas_military_bases You can google for each of these countries as well, such as France and their presence in Africa, as well as other “past”-colonial forces, US with their presence in Kosovo, Turkey with their presence in a lot of Balkan countries (also previous colonies of Ottoman empire). There is a lot of countries in the World that where past colonies that never got rid completly of their imperialist rulers. In fact during cold war they made an alliance just for that, that is where the term third world comes from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World Obviously imperialist didn’t like that and the media propaganda changed the meaning of that term to the “developing country” to excuse them staying there while they “develop”. Never actually leaving of course.
You’re conflating a lot of topics in your discourse but you clearly don’t understand what you are talking about. Yes, many countries have military bases overseas. That is not controversial or new. They are used as means to expediently deploy troops and assets to various global positions. The fact that some of these countries happen to be part of NATO has nothing to do with your previous position.
It is more then just having a base. They often run the whole country. I simply tried to find a single list for all of it, but if you look into these cases, one by one, you can see what I mean. Take French troops in Africa, they are collonizers that never left and their government can’t kick them out. Take NATO troops in Kosovo, they are completley dependent on US support to exist. Or Israel as well. Or many other places in Middle East. These are not volontery military presence in these locations, they are invasions which people can’t get rid of, either under threat of antoher force taking over or because they just wont leave.
You deserve some sort of award for most incoherent post ever with this shit.
You’re doing it again and at this point it feels intentional. You’re taking five different things that are unrelated and mixing them but throwing enough vague terms hoping that something will stick:
This is a gish gallop
Well if you don’t see common western imperilism pattern, I can’t help you.
Again with the buzzwords “western imperialism pattern”. You have nothing of substance to say. It’s like a bingo card of poli-sci 101 buzzwords
It’s not a buzzword just because you want to keep it a secret.
Again, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. So, link something else.
Not defending the probable Russian shill, but Wikipedia is a pretty reliable source. What it is not is a primary source. But every claim has a source whose reliability can be assessed (and what counts as reliable is going to vary from person to person). So, no, if I’m writing an essay or a formal document, I’m not going to cite Wikipedia. But if I’m arguing with strangers on the internet, Wikipedia is a fairly credible place to start backing up your claims.
You can say that for literarly anything. Wikipedia has sources for every claim. Are you dispututing that NATO was in those countries. I have seen some of those troops in those countries with my own eyes.