Gee, I wonder what nation could possibly be behind this?
Australia may not be in NATO, but there's close coordination anyways.
Pick a fight with Australia and the ANZUS Treaty comes into force, and if the ANAZACs are in a fight, the US and UK will almost certainly be involved.
Nuke Japan? You've picked a fight with NATO. Invade Australia? Same deal.
Edit: Andorrans, not Andorians
Although I do admit, the content of the fake news articles seem a little crude to be coming from peace activists. Personally I would post simple truthful anti-NATO, anti-military, and anti-nuclear weapons propaganda if I had the will to break into news web sites CMS.
EDIT: People are rallying against my anti-militarism. I don’t think there is a point arguing that, and such an argument is blatantly out of topic. Here we are discussing that I have a reason to doubt that a nation state is behind these attacks.
I wonder how Europe will respond when the next Crimea happens? Or if Taiwan gets attacked. It's a real question, and I'd love to hear from a peace-activist.
I'd bet Europe will do nothing. Merkel wouldn't even openly criticize China for stripping away democracy from Hong Kong. European models work well in a world without dictatorships. But as long as we have dictatorships, rigid pacifism is just throwing militarily weaker democracies under the bus. Irrespective of what one thinks about Trump, the US military a dependable ally for (many) democracies. And perhaps the only one with the willingness to act.
(Not an American.)
Crimea was annexed by a militaristic nation from a smaller less—but still quite—militaristic nation. Ukraine is neighbored to the west with supporting European nation—some with a really big military, and even nuclear weapons. None of those were able—or even willing—to stop the annexation. In this instance these armies were useless.
China annexed Tibet in the 50s and it wasn’t stopped. What makes you think Taiwan would be any different? China is a dictatorial power that is committing a genocide against a religious minority in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. It is not stopped. What makes you think Hong Kong would be any different?
Please note that invasions, and wars are not the only ways to act against human rights violations. There is also sanctions and boycotts. This was particularly effective to stop the South African apartheid. But alas, the current world powers are unwilling to apply even that to try to stop China from their human rights violations.
---
1. Even though I’ve had this conversation dozens of times, and the idea of military is so engraved into people that the idea that we don’t need it—or worse is harmful—is too alien for people to even contemplate.
You do understand we're talking about NATO and Russia, right? I mean, there is no clearer example of why NATO was created and exists up to this day that Russia's attack and invasion of Ukraine. The reason why Russia dedicates itself to weaken NATO is precisely that as well. You cannot talk about NATO without discussing Russia's historical aggression and expansionist agenda towards all its neighbouring states.
Knowing that, and as you are a self described peace activists with an axe to grind against NATO, why do you intentionally turn a blind eye to the very core of the problem?
Why? I would think anyone who truly wanted peace would welcome treaties meant to deter war [1], and would want to expand them globally rather than abolish them. Small wars are still wars, and there's one going on right now one country away from NATO.
https://www.quora.com/What-do-NATO-rules-say-when-one-member...
[1] assuming war is never justified, even to prevent things like genocide.
Getting rid of nuclear arms means surrendering to those who don't.
World peace is not maintained by hugs and kisses. Big sticks keeps peace.
Civilian anti-military activists are such a group, regardless of how correct, or noble the cause is.
Just to prevent misunderstanding: I am not accusing peace activists of these attacks. I’m just saying that non-state actors have ample reasons and self justifications for pulling this off. And for that matter juvenile teenagers that just so happen to hate NATO for whatever reason might just as well have done this.
https://www.nato.int/docu/review/articles/2019/04/26/russian...
As you link to an article written by a partial actor over a year before the crime.
Just because an actor is guilty of several crimes, it won’t mean that all similar crimes conducted afterwards are conducted by that same actor.
I wonder how so-called "peace activists" look at Russia's invasion of Ukraine and still don't quite grasp the importance of NATO.
I would understand using Ukraine's example to argue the exact opposite, but for some reason you believe that a first sign of aggression justifies dismantling all defenses.
There is precedent of NATO interfering in armed conflicts outside of the borders of their member states. They did so in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo during the Yugoslav wars. They also did so in Afghanistan and Libya (come to think of it; NATO has demonstrated it self to be more like an invasion pact then a defensive one). Why didn’t they act in Ukraine? You tell me.
Now again, there are non-intervention ways of punishing Russia for this blatant violation of international treaties, such as boycotts or sanctions. However all of the 10 NATO members that qualified opted to participate in the 2018 FIFA world cup hosted by hostile Russia. How is that for solidarity?