> NATO operated in Libya to implement a security council resolution, meaning it had at least the tacit approval of China and Russia as well.
The criticism towards NATO in Lybia mostly boils down to NATO overstepping and going out of scope of the resolution. And clearly, it's not Russia, China or the US who should decide for Africa.
What about Syria? The US is relying on NATO infrastructure for its operations there. Who invited them?
What about Yugoslavia? This is an especially noteworthy case, judging by how hard the western propaganda tries to erase it from history. Just ask a Serbian whether they feel like NATOs depleted uranium munitions felt "defensive", or what they think of the narrative that current conflict in Ukraine is the first serious conflict in Europe since WWII.
Srsly, what is it going to take to drop an idiotic supremacist image of NATO as a beloved and welcomed knight in shining armor, and realize that it's just a tool of war.
Probably quite a lot, since it was born in a culture with a history of inventing supremacist ideologies, deaf to an idea that some might not really see it as a universal good, but rather as just another quasi-empire, minding it's own political and economic benefit before anything else.
Quite a lot of people in Eurasia and Africa see NATO as a threat and don't feel like being ochlos to NATO's demos. But what do these subhuman unenlightened savages understand, am I right? /s
There isn't some separate NATO army that does things at the behest of its members. Sometimes the members of NATO decide to do things with their militaries, alone or together. They have clubbed together on some equipment standards too. But the existence or not of NATO as a defensive alliance wouldn't have prevented those countries from intervening in those situations.
Turkey could have provided those bases for the US to use in Syria NATO or not. Indeed, they didn't just provide them because they're NATO, the US still had to make an agreement.
I think the Syrian Kurds were pretty keen on the US being there, and the Kosovo Albanians in Yugoslavia. If I recall that one correctly, Russia also sent a peacekeeping force at the same time.
> Quite a lot of people in Eurasia and Africa see NATO as a threat
Sure, but that doesn't mean they should. They can see the US as a threat, or an actor such as France. But the Polish army is unlikely to be bullying them around.
It's also impossible to please. When Western countries didn't step in to conflicts and genocide they're criticized, when they do they're criticized. Should they have just let the Serbs do whatever in Kosovo?
> NATO as a beloved and welcomed knight in shining armor, and realize that it's just a tool of war.
I've never seen it that way. It's a tool of war and tools of war are also tools of defense. My country is not a NATO member.
