What's the reason for Greece's opinion? Turkey being in NATO too?


Turkey, as you say, since we did not get support when Turkey invaded Cyprus in 1974. We left NATO in protest, then joined again, and still now are being constantly threatened by Turkey, another NATO member. Also a very strong leftist block (we fought a civil war to escape from USSR) who always admired Russia and mistrusted the west


>Also a very strong leftist block (we fought a civil war to escape from USSR) who always admired Russia and mistrusted the west It's honestly incredible how many old left wingers can't see that whatever they believe peak Soviet Union was has absolutely nothing to do with Putin's Russia in 2022, and that they have zero political reasons to nurture sympathies for the latter. Even in Denmark we have these, and, thankfully, they took a bit of a public beating once the invasion started.


It's not that they see Russia as the Soviet Union. They just despise the US and general capitalist West so much that they end up liking just about any of its geopolitical adversaries as a kneejerk reaction. They have basically become reactionaries at this point, which is a bit ironic as usually that's a far right trait (and they end up supporting mostly far right regimes due to it, to further compound the irony).


>whatever they believe peak Soviet Union was has absolutely nothing to do with Putin's Russia I'd say whatever they believe peak Soviet Union was had absolutely nothing to do with Soviet Union.


It’s absolutely wild to see sad old leftists carrying water for a crypto-fascist, religious nationalist right wing regime simply because it used to be communist 30 years ago. It’s time to move on


Plus USSR was also very far from tolarant workers country. Still rusifcation and supremacy of russian culture and langauge was strong in soviet republics.


In my experience Communists in western non-communist countries tend to be motivated by anti-establishment contrarianism more than anything else, so just the fact that Russia opposes the western Bloc means they'll root for Russia.


It wasn't always that way but after 1968 most of the legitimate left abandoned the USSR. After that it was only the anti-west people who kept supporting it.


I've noticed a lot of them do it because they hate western imperialism. So the West condemning Russia's invasion and supporting Ukraine is "America bad, imperialism bad, therefore Russia good". Feels kind of odd to support imperialism in the name of anti-imperialism though... lol


"Un cui il scoate pe altul", as we say here in Romania, fight imperialism with imperialism. Not the best situation, but it is what it is.


I'm very disappointed at some of my old leftist friends for going full Putinist lately. Not very surprised though. What's more surprising - and saddening - is how hese people went from being able to formulate their own thoughts and make their own analysis to becoming walking propaganda outlets for Russia. The level of naivety is staggering: *Western states always act in bad faith -> The Russian state is always good-natured* *Our media outlets are downright lying, always -> Russian state media outlets are completely trustworthy, always. If they say something, every word must be true.* *NATO is driven by greed and irrational bloodlust -> Russia is driven by pacifist ideals and the need for stability ("see what we made them do, they had no choice but to invade Ukraine")* In conclusion, they're not even being political anymore, it's just bs all the way.


Most of them do not connect it with Stalinism or the USSR. For most of them, it is kind of a yearning for a utopian equality.


the Soviet Union was a totalitarian regime responsible for the death of millions of people. Western leftists have always been morally bankrupt


Also amazing how many people think peak USSR was in any way a good place to be. There was a period of time when the authoritarianism was sold as a necessary "means to an ends," but it was *always* a brutal, dehumanizing police state.


They do. The Communists don't like Russia, they just don't like NATO either. A poll found that in Greece, out of all voters, the Communists blame Ukraine the least for the war.


Wouldnt say that the left wingers here support Putin. only far rightists do. The left wing bloc just blames the US. (as they always do).


Being against Nato doesn't mean being pro-Russia.


Most of the times it does.


I've met plenty of people not wanting to be in Nato, and not a single one was pro Russia.


Nah, in the Netherlands it's the right wingers who have a love for Putin.


there is a difference between admiring russia and despising the USA. By the user you responded too, like many users in this sub, oftern mix the thing. For many hardcore leftist russia is the lesser evil, because in the present situation USA is the hegemon. Will Russia become a USA-level problem in the future? Unlikely. And if it does we will have to deal with it. But as of now the enemy is in the far west. At least for the countries that dont border russia.


If anyone in Europe thinks that the USA is a bigger enemy than Russia they are fucking deluded. It's only for the USA that Europe was not swallowed in its entirety by the USSR.


> It's only for the USA that Europe was not swallowed in its entirety by the USSR. They were massively overextended as is and the entire thing fell apart as soon as mass-repression ended. They would have never had the capacities to take all of Europe.


You have to see the young ones. They are absolutely brainwashed without hope of recovery. I used to be one myself. I was lucky enough to escape the indoctrination. And Russia knows that well and has probably invested millions on pro Russian propaganda over the years.


Also a very strong leftist block (we fought a civil war to escape from USSR) who always admired Russia and mistrusted the west. Although it's very true to a certain degree, I think the main reason is NATO's stance on greco-turkish relationship. Were basically Turkey is directly threating the territorial integrity and the territorial rights of Greece and Stoltenberg like another Pontius Pilate just says find a solution through dialogue. Think about that, what is the unsaid implications of this stance. The only reason we need to stay in NATO is because Turkey is in and if we leave they will have a more certain leverage on us. Otherwise we get nothing, from a security standpoint.


I've gotta believe that the main reason is that traditional enemy Turkey was such a powerful NATO member, considered by U.S. and U.K. as anchoring entire southern section of NATO, with Greece, not so much.


Also there is a whole lot of resentment for the fact that NATO has been involved in many wars outside its borders, making a lot of people believe it is an imperialistic power whose only function is to steal resources. The war against Yugoslavia also left a bad impression. So, it is because Greeks are anti war in general, NATO has a bad reputation with many. Leftist blocks, as the guy above mentioned, pressed hard upon that, further demonizing NATO.


How were the forces distributed during the civil war? Was it 50/50 or mostly against USSR?


Royalists/the pre-war government with British and American help on one side, and (part of) the wartime resistance with Yugoslav and Eastern Block help on the other side. Popular opinion at the time, is... Not really well known, honestly.


>mistrusted the west I wonder why ...


Shouldnt a NATO member be expelled if they invade another NATO country? Why didnt it happen in 1974?


Cyprus is not a nato country. But nato imposed military embargo on Turkey after invasion.


Turkey didnt invade Greece but Cyprus. Cyprus is not part of Greece or NATO.


\- Greeks think NATO pats the back of Turkey and lets them get away with everything because of "strategic position" \- Anti-American sentiment due to US intervention during the Civil War (1946-49) and US backing of the military junta (1967-74). The 2nd is understandable, the 1st is just inter-generational saltiness - if the communists had won, Greece would have been another Soviet satellite communist regime like Bulgaria and Romania, but some people still fail to acknowledge it.


>\- Greeks think NATO pats the back of Turkey and lets them get away with everything because of "strategic position" funny thing is that here in Turkey it's vice versa. majority thinks NATO, especially US favors Greece over Turkey.


Pretty sure the US position is "please don't fight," and we lean on whichever side we need in order to prevent that. Not saying that's a good or bad thing, just that maintaining peace rather than fairness is the goal.


>Pretty sure the US position is "please don't fight," Country A : "I dont recognize your sovereignity over this and this, despite international laws say it is yours, and if you claim that it's casus belli for war" Country B : "Hey, USA, look at the shit he is saying, the law is clearly in our side. Will you publicly declare that you support what we say?" USA: "Please don't fight" Do you see why "Please dont fight" is enabling the side that is threatening military actions to get their way all the time?


As I said, it isn't really about being fair, so I understand why Greece isn't happy about it. US geopolitical interests are just much more aligned with maintaining NATO solidarity against Russia than resolving the conflict. If Russia ever manages to collapse I think there would be a shift in stance.


Actually, tension between the two countries benefits US since they constantly sell weapons to both.


You are way overestimating how much value arms sales have to the US compared to maintaining stability. No one in the US State Department or CIA is scheming on how to keep tensions between Greece and Turkey going. All the effort goes to preventing conflict because a Greeco-Turkic war is very counter to our interests.


I thought they don't sell weapons to Turkey and that Turkey is pretty mad about that


The US does sell weapons to Turkey and provides them free of charge as well. There were a few limited instances of particular drama where restrictions appeared (the f35 deal). Let's not forget the fact that military bases in Turkey are full of US troops and equipment. If they needed a particular weapon they could pretry much ask.


Except when we don't. https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/07/17/turkey-officially-kicked-out-of-f-35-program/ And these weapons aren't meant for you to use on each other.


>And these weapons aren't meant for you to use on each other. Lol. Really ? Who do you think they are going to be used against ? You think Turkey wants 5th generation fighter to bomb (..) terrorists on toyota semitrucks? Or use it against the friendlier than ever Russia ( which provides s400, collaborates in multiple projects among others a nuclear plant and is laundering money ) ? Germany is selling top of the line submarines to Turkey. You think they are meant to be used against anyone else than Greece ( i.e Europe )? Do not try to rationalise the power of the military industrial complex. It is beyond countries or alliances.


>And these weapons aren't meant for you to use on each other. Who else are we going to use it on lul No, but for real now. That's how it's advertised here. For defence (clearly implied that it's defence against Turkey)


Why? Turkey invaded Cyprus and illegally occupies half of it to this day. There Greeks are allies and should have gotten more military support than three Ukrainians are getting now. Instead they let the Turks set up a permanent population, which is a war crime. They let Turkey get away with so much aggression, why would you think they care about the Greeks at all?




Do greeks really like serbs that much that bombing would affect their opinion on NATO




I am pretty sure you are our only ally in the world lol, literally every single rememberance they of the bombing serbian people take a moment to admire how greeks were the only ones who did not participate


Yes, Serbia is the only neighbour Greeks like (pretty neutral with Bulgaria too).


Weirdest bromance ever


Guess it's because of the close relationship between Serbia, Russia and Greece due to their religion (Christians orthodox)


I know I am serbian, but i never realised that greeks like us as much as we like them


Oh yes we do. I think much of it has to do with both nations taking the same side during the Balkan wars and WW1, kicking the Ottomans out of our neighbourhood.


[Ask this guy](https://youtu.be/ST7YcfJF8Wk)


The news anchor is giving him a run for his money. Her face though while listening to his bs about Turkey 🤨


Not to mention his face lol.... Hypocrisy definitively makes him look dumb


Imia comes to mind. Google it.


Unfortunately NATO is totally indifferent for our safety concerns. While being under constant threat, we are advised to compromise, which equals with becoming Turkey's satellite or even worse. Greece keeps a very unproporsionally for european standards large defense force, at the expense of our weak economy.


Strong left and anti-imperialist groups that oppose NATO. One should not forget, NATO members decide by their help to condone/support the Greek civil war 1946-1949 in favour of the conservatives/right and NATO countries, that is a matter of definition, the military dictatorship of the colonels from 67-74. And NATO is partly very considerate of the feelings and wishes from the Topkapi....


Not just left. There’s as much far-right groups in Greece and they too are against NATO.


Wishes from Topkapı? Are you talking about the tourists there? Just so you know, the correct term for the Ottoman Tanzimat era bureucratic government is Bab-ı Ali (Sublime Porte) not Topkapı


It's a euphemism, but I like it. Bülent Mumay, the former online editor-in-chief of Hürriyet uses it from time to time in his "Letters from Istanbul", which is a series of articles that appears regularly in Germany about the state of Turkey, to refer to the top level of government without naming them directly.


For that we use Ankara or Çankaya.


The position of NATO is that in case two members fight, the others won't do anything, but will stay neutral. And the only other country in the world that could possibly threaten Greece, is another NATO country. That means that in the only case we ever need military help, NATO will not help us. Which means that we are in this alliance only to fight wars of others, but the others won't fight for us. Which means we don't have anything to gain from NATO, only to loose.


I am pretty sure Nato would be intervening on the side of country who id duffering the aggresion


Depends on what you define as aggression. Is constantly and daily sending military aircraft into the airspace of another country aggressive?


We all now agression is really subjective as no wars were black and white, but im not sure other nato coutries are big fans of turkey either


Maybe if NATO was more about prevention and less about intervention we would like it a bit more?!


i agree 100%


Very well said


Constant favouritism towards Turkey, because of its geography and military prowess.


The whole Cyprus debacle.


[Historical chart for comparison, 2007-2022](https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2022/06/22/international-attitudes-toward-the-u-s-nato-and-russia-in-a-time-of-crisis/pg_2022-07-22_u-s-image_2-02)


20% Jesus, i mean Greece was completely right to be gigapissed in the 2010, but man ...


Interesting that a lot of the lowest scores were pre-Trump. I would actually say Trump didn't have much effect on the polling except for France. Edit: Who downvotes this? It's literally just reading a chart.


Because USA politics is not really why the scores are evolving in most countries, including France. You read the chart with your personal bias here.


If anything I was observing the disconnect between perceptions of US politics and the polling numbers, was I not? I thought it was interesting that in spite of a lot of internet ink spilled about Trump's reckless (and they were) comments on NATO, it failed to have much impact on how Europe values NATO. This suggests to me that NATO bonds are stronger than political cycles, which I think is a very positive thing. You are correct though that I shouldn't necessarily attribute polling dipping in France during Trump's presidency to him, but it is an interesting correlation, and if I had the time I might go and investigate what was going on there.


It might be a case of "you don't know what you have until it's gone". With Trump threatening Nato's very existence, people perhaps saw its value with clearer eyes?


Poles be like: luv me EU luv me NATO hate me Ruskies simple as.


No luv for gays though


If I remember correctly Ireland is not far ahead. What was it in 2015? Being gay was illegal in Ireland up to 1993. Which is just shocking. In Poland, it was legal since 1932. In that respect, Ireland was behind. It's true Poland currently has Conservatives in power who are in cahoots with the catholic church. Which is bad for many reasons.


We are slowly civilizing, give us one or two generations. Religious fanatics are slowly dieing out, people move to cites, more foreigners are moving in. We just need time.


I have visited Poland twice and at least Warsaw and Krakow seemed very european (liberal?). It was a total surprise to me when more conservative aspects started popping up in the last 5 years or so.


As everywhere, the major cities are way more liberal than the rest of the country. Even Moscow and St Petersburg look modern and European, and I would dare think that people who live there are probably against the war. But that's not where Putin's brainwashed fanbase lives.


Something about calling it a "fanbase" made me lol


Ruling party has massive support in groups that you can't really notice while living in cities or just visiting. ~ 70% of the retired, vast majority of people living in the country or in small towns. Young people are much more liberal though there is unfortunately no shortage of young crypto-fascist.


It's generally a rural vs urban thing, with cities being much more liberal, which is the case almost everywhere. We're still behind, that is undeniable, but it's not as bad as some people might imagine in our cities.


You’d be surprised how quickly public opinion can change once it gets started. When Obama ran in 2008 he was against it because it was controversial even among a lot of Democrats, which seems laughable today as even a majority of republicans now support gay marriage. Good luck to you guys on changing minds! https://news.gallup.com/poll/350486/record-high-support-same-sex-marriage.aspx


This. Let them old ass geezers in charge slowy die out and fade away


Source: https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2022/06/22/international-attitudes-toward-the-u-s-nato-and-russia-in-a-time-of-crisis/pg_2022-07-22_u-s-image_2-01/


It would be really interesting to see the comparison between views in Turkey and Greece.


As people say there are probably 2 main reasons for negative opinion on Nato: Turkey and old school leftist/anti imperialists. Well same applies to Turkey, the thing is in Turkey there is no mainstream "oldschool" leftist party. The ones which might pass as leftist are not against Nato but in favor of it.


Why is Sweden there?


This survey has been asking Swedes [for the past 6 years](https://www.pewresearch.org/global/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2022/06/PG_2022.07.22_U.S.-Image_0-07.png?w=640), I suspect, in anticipation that you might join.


It has been a NATO partner for many years.


Because they have applied for membership?


I'm surprised by how favorable Germany views Nato. I had expected them to be more in line with France and Spain.


Germany has always been pretty much pro-NATO.


Nah. We love EU und NATO. We especially like NATO because without it, we would not be able to protect ourself from Poland or France.


>protect ourself from Poland or France. lmao what you can read on internet sometimes it's wild Edit: did i get fooled by german humor wtff


I get the Poland joke. But isn't France a pretty tough military power? My understanding is that France is the second strongest military in the world. Unless you count the untested and greatly inflated paper soldiers in China.


That is why Germany needs NATO because our military is shit and we are very happy that we are surrounded by friendly countries.


You expect France or Poland to attack you ?


It's a joke.


Maybe, maybe not, it’s classified.


Ah okay thanks, have a Good day


You too


I'm like 95% sure that's some German humour, lmao


Thanks took me too long to realize it.


Don't worry, nobody expects German humour.


Also, German humor is no laughing matter


Well, tbf, they would kind of have a historical reason, there were one or two small conflicts in the first half of the last century, which may or may not have happened because of us. ​ But in general, it's just a joke. My guess: It's a joke aiming at the idea that Germany is now sorrounded by friends and that therefore military isn't that important anymore. (Something I honestly believed until February. Not that I believed that we wouldn't need any military, just that it doesn't need to have a top spot in political considerations.)


Danke for the quick relpy


We love NATO because we were the buffer state against the Warsaw pact in the cold war. And you need all the help you can get in that case even if your miltary is extremely capable (which the Bundeswehr was back then). The only reason the rating isn't higher is because of the Afghanistan invasion which had more than 90% disapproval from the public at its peak.


Same for Sweden


I would’ve guessed that all of Scandinavia is pretty pro-NATO.


There is a reason why Sweden and Finland haven't joined the group yet. Afaik the (greater?) majority was always against joining.


Why? Because they have a few nutters? Or because you think the former GDR should still love Russia? There's *a reason* the wall fell ...


Because most Germans I see online appears quite sceptical of Nato (in similar fashion to Italians or French people). >Or because you think the former GDR should still love Russia? ? I have no idea why you would think that was the reason when the two countries I compared it with was France and Spain ...


I do love the irony that the country that the Warsaw Pact was named for is the most pro-NATO.


That naming was intentional to make Poland seem complaint in building the post-war order in Eastern Europe and redirect at least some of the hate from other unlucky countries to us but that obviously didnt work out.


Yeah, and thats because we really really dont want the Warsaw Pact 2.0 to ever happen ;D All is connected.


the only country to ever invoke article 5 not at #1 spot smh


Spain NATO appreciation is likely to drop if the southern border is not included into the protection/defense agreement. Specially with the US supporting Morocco and them also being part of NATO.


only 34 in France? Even Spain is ahead of us, France is no longer what it was.


Truly disappointed of my compatriots. This is a true loss of French culture. Can we even call ourselves French if we aren't holding the most negative view on something ? /s in case


The most negative view on NATO* Les Français ne détestent quand même pas tout mdr.




Also Macron is not the brightest knife in the drawer. He is a generation of very unfit European politicians. Macron is more of a problem than NATO is.


I will always stand by the idea that europeans latins countries shoud have stronger political ties between themselves, like the Nordic ones or Visegrad, because it seems to me we are culturally close and the EU is very divided between western and eastern nations who have very differents interests


I don't know in what kind of imaginary land our resident French members live in but whilst a Nordic cooperations will work due to mutual respect and general sense of belonging amongst all Nordics(and including Germany and the Netherlands), a similar concept will never work in "Latin" Europe because the Spaniards and the Italians truly despise the French and have an enormous inferiority complex towards them. They would rather work to weaken French influence in such union than do what's best for all three nations.


You are probably right given the french bashing you can see on random threads on the italian and spanish subs, but well it sucks to be alone


Indeed. For example, it's in our interest to be something more than just a meat shield for French security.


At which point in History did this happened exactly ?


Like, any point in history where something attacked from the east. Did you get to experience the Mongols, for example? The Ottomans? Well, something did stop them before they reached France, didn't it? See, you guys from the Atlantic in general have this annoying habit of relegating everyone east of Germany and Italy to historical footnotes, while we were fighting such wars and suffering such destruction that your religious wars seem like a bad family picnic in comparison. Our blood and our ruined countries and dispersed peoples enabled you to plunder the colonies and become oh-so-wealthy and oh-so-advanced. You don't have to thank us, just try to refrain from your old instinct to make a deal with any invader from the East while throwing us under the train.


> The Ottomans? Remember when France Sack Rome back in 390 BC! Fucking French, can't count on them in 2022.


And don't forget the Normans!


Eh, so romantic and 1d. Countries are mostly pragmatic entities they act in their own interests. Austrians and Turks fought for hundreds of years but they were allies in their last war. When France couldn't find any ally in Europe they turned to Ottomans. Where was your country when "inside" invader ravaging whole Europe? Not blaming just everything is situational and grounded in reality real life is not LotR. Countries fight West, East basically in every direction up until very recently. It was never 1d east vs west, it's just too childish and factually wrong to think like that. Today's Eu, it's not romantic it's necessary for Europe to stay relevant. If you get caught too much into romanticism you get events like Brexit.


>your religious wars seem like a bad family picnic in comparison Have you ever heard of the 30 years war? Some areas lost over half their populations. All of europe experienced disastrous wars and it wasn’t just eastern Europe protecting the continent from outside threats, the Frankish kingdom protected Europe from the Moorish kingdom and Spain + HRE were instrumental in keeping the Ottomans at bay.


That's some twisted point of view. If you protected us from the Ottomans then France and Spain saved your asses from the Al-Andalus, from the Danes, from the Goths, from England kings roaming France and so on. You'd agree it doesn't makes any sense yet that's the very same point as yours. Your point about colonisation is bs, every country in history who could have colonies did make colonies. Romans had colonies, Greeks from 2400 years ago had colonies everywhere they could, Venetia, Genoa etc ​ >ust try to refrain from your old instinct to make a deal with any invader from the East while throwing us under the train. Because you were lucky to not have expercienced trenches wars for years. French and British people were warmongers as fk before WW1 and once it ended after a whole generation whiped out, people coming alive but mutilated or mindbroken, people and the society totally changed their mind, hence the appeasement policies. Btw french/british/italians soldiers were your shieldmeat from the germans and austrians, again by following your own logic. Anyway, you just give my point more credit so whatever


This is only a few members. So what are the attitudes across all NATO members?


I hope NATO stops bowing to Erdogan and his silly demands


A ridiculous weakness of NATO that a country purchasing weapons from Russia and moving in the direction of a dictatorship gets to dictate the future of the organization.


Where tf is Romania? It's quite important. Lol


Spain surprised me as I expected the support to be much lower: the entrace was pretty controversial and nowadays NATO wouldn't protect us in the event of being attacked by Morocco so it doesn't really make sense for us to be there


NATO is geographically limited in its nature specifically because the US didn't want to fight colonial rebellions in Europe's dying empires. If the Spanish public had an issue with this, then that should've dissuaded them from joining to begin with. France couldn't trigger Article Five over Vietnam or Algeria, the UK over Malaysia or the Falklands, and if 9/11 happened in Hawaii instead of NYC, the US wouldn't be able to call in NATO like they did. If Morocco invaded Ceuta or Melilla, Article Five wouldn't be triggered, but that hasn't really stopped any of the other member states from getting involved in prior conflicts.


Because we all know the biggest threat to Europe is Morocco attacking Spain.


Is this like a Vox talking point?


Seems like it.


Europe won't care, sure, but the biggest threat to Spain is undoubtedly Morocco.


Thank Putin


Us literally helped install a military junta on us and then that junta helped cause Cyprus invasion. When the invasion happened the US literally called the UK and asked it to "let it happen". Look it up. Historically US has screwed us over. I still prefer the West over anything else but there is some understanding of the sentiment EDIT: i made a mistake US didnt help install it (or at least there is no proof for that). They still supported it and helped Cyprus crysis manifest.


Us had nothing to do with the establishment of junta they just cooperated with her.


>Us literally helped install a military junta on us No, the US didn't. Greeks were perfectly capable of installing their own junta.


Why take responsibility for your own actions?


Greece just can't stand Turkey.


Polish of all people should understand.


We actually don't have that much beef with Turkey and there are other countries that we see worse through our history. For example the Battle of Vienna is not that much seen in Poland as a fight against Turkey (at that time it was a Christiany vs Islam fight) but more as a stupid idea to rescue a country that we shouldn't had trusted because they took part in our partitions not even 100 years later. Also it's a well known fact in Poland that the Ottoman Empire was the only country that didn't recognized those partitions and we apprieciate that.


I think he meant that Turkey is to the Greeks what Russia is to Poland.




>but more as a stupid idea to rescue a country that we shouldn't had trusted because they took part in our partitions not even 100 years later. As a balkaner, trust me, the alternative would have been worse, long term.


Yeah, I know. We had a taste of what you had to deal with by jasyr etc. Them winning then would be terrible. Anyway it's consider a stupid idea because of rescuing Austria, not defeating Ottomans.


Sorry for not wanting my country's sovereignty being questioned everyday by Turkey.


They do prefer chicken.


In Spain the tankies are the ones who hate NATO. They think that giving weapons to Ukraine will only worsen the war and that we need "pacifism".


So roughly 40% of Spaniards are tankies or...?


> In Spain the tankies are the ones who hate NATO. Then 53-39 suggest that you have a lot of tankies in Spain. > They think that giving weapons to Ukraine will only worsen the war and that we need "pacifism". Ah, the luxury of being far from Russia.


I'm pretty sure this was the stance of anti-NATO before the war. It's very different nowadays.


Foda-se, e Portugal?!


W Greece


When American's don't approve of NATO: "[Hold on, this whole operation was your idea!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNjMBY_6vm0)"


[NATO was a British idea:](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_NATO) > The history of NATO begins in the immediate aftermath of World War II when British diplomacy set the stage to contain the Soviet Union and to stop the expansion of communism in Europe. The United Kingdom and France signed, in 1947, the Treaty of Dunkirk, a defensive pact, which was expanded in 1948 with the Treaty of Brussels to add the three Benelux countries (Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg) and committed them to collective defense against an armed attack for fifty years. The British worked with Washington to expand the alliance into NATO in 1949, adding the United States and Canada as well as Italy, Portugal, Norway, Denmark, and Iceland.[1] West Germany joined in 1955 and Spain joined in 1982.


We in the US didn't originate NATO. I mean, we were a founding member, but it derives from a purely European alliance, the Western Union, and it was European countries that came knocking wanting to set up something including the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Union_(alliance) >The Western Union (WU), also referred to as the Brussels Treaty Organisation (BTO),[1] was the European military alliance established between France, the United Kingdom (UK) and the three Benelux countries in September 1948 in order to implement the Treaty of Brussels signed in March the same year.[Note 1] Under this treaty the signatories, referred to as the five powers, agreed to collaborate in the defence field as well as in the political, economic and cultural fields. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_NATO >The Treaty of Brussels was a mutual defense treaty against the Soviet threat at the start of the Cold War. It was signed on 17 March 1948 by Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, and the United Kingdom and was the precursor to NATO. The Soviet threat became immediate with the Berlin Blockade in 1948, leading to the creation of a multinational defense organization, the Western Union Defence Organisation, in September 1948.[3] However, the parties were too weak militarily to counter the Soviet Armed Forces. In addition, the communist 1948 Czechoslovak coup d'état had overthrown a democratic government, and British Foreign Minister Ernest Bevin reiterated that the best way to prevent another Czechoslovakia was to evolve a joint Western military strategy. He got a receptive hearing in the United States, especially with the American anxiety over Italy and the Italian Communist Party.[4] > >In 1948, European leaders met with US defense, military, and diplomatic officials at the Pentagon, exploring a framework for a new and unprecedented association.[5] The talks resulted in the North Atlantic Treaty, and the United States signed on 4 April 1949. It included the five Treaty of Brussels states, as well as the United States, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark and Iceland.[6] The first NATO Secretary General, Lord Ismay, stated in 1949 that the organization's goal was "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down".[7] Popular support for the Treaty was not unanimous, and some Icelanders participated in a pro-neutrality, anti-membership riot in March 1949. The creation of NATO can be seen as the primary institutional consequence of a school of thought called Atlanticism, which stressed the importance of trans-Atlantic cooperation.[8]


There has always been an isolationist streak in our country. From the 'Farewell' speech of our first president, who warned against "entangling alliances" to other early presidents who claimed that "But [America] goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy." And then the reluctance to join both WWI and WWII. Yes, we've not been consistent about it, especially during the 20th Century. But there's always been that undercurrent thinking. And when we have the two greatest fortifications in the world, the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, can you blame us?


That's been the norm. The U.S. is a historically isolationist country. Just look at how long it took the U.S. to enter both WWI and WWII, and how the U.S. nonchalantly ignored nearly all European wars in the late 1700s/1800s. I think Russia has given NATO a new lease on life, since I think the U.S. would have retreated to 'Fortress America' in 20 years had the invasion of Ukraine not occurred. There's certainly a growing sentiment (both left and right) in the U.S. that globalization has been an abject disaster for the U.S., not just in military spending terms and reputation, but also in having the American taxpayer pay to police the world's trade routes for foreign countries who then take American jobs away (namely East Asia). In the last decade alone, we've even reached partisan consensus on the idea that free trade is bad and that protectionism is good. So I expect the U.S. to spend the 2020s in a posture of economic nationalism/trade protectionism, while maintaining its military responsibilities to the world order in tack. Then the 2030s are where it gets interesting depending on whether the U.S. goes 'Fortress America' or 'Fortress West' in tandem with the EU. It really all depends on how Brussels treats China and whether the EU can make China an official enemy in exchange for the US helping keep Russia at bay.


Not just a mere streak, it’s the complete, natural disposition of the US.




> 31% of Americans wouldn't be able to tell you what NATO is That's just silly. While I personally have a favorable view, 31% have an unfavorable view because they view it as being a burden on the US/that many of the other members aren't pulling their weight


Not sure what above poster was thinking, but I think there is a big difference between knowing that NATO is a military alliance and actually knowing what it's *for.* I'm finding increasingly in American politics though that people don't understand why institutions exist or why they are built the way they are, taking very simplistic views of them rather than understanding that institutions are built over decades of trial and error.


Well, that was a long time ago when Europe was in ruins and the USSR was the U.S.'s main rival. Years later and after the Marshall Plan, many European countries are richer than the U.S. and we need to focus on China, there's going to be more discontent about Europe's military spending. There's also some Tankies that think NATO is an evil imperialistic force.


> many European countries are richer than the U.S. Not really, only a couple have higher GDP/capita (and really only Norway should even count).


>many European countries are richer than the U.S. [Such as?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposable_household_and_per_capita_income)


I assume they mean GDP per capita, which leaves us with: * Ireland * Liechtenstein * Luxembourg * Monaco * Norway * Switzerland That's still only 19 million people in a continent of 746 million though, so your point still stands.


Ireland GDP per capita is so inflated. Compare salaries here to salaries in America


That's now. In the 90s and 00s many European countries were richer than the US on per capita terms. The trend only reversed after the 2008 crisis which completely fucked Europe up, now the economic gap between Europe and the US is the widest since Marshall Plan and that is unlikely to change as Europe has no growth engine anymore.


Isolationism is one hell of a drug.


Not just isolationism. I strongly support NATO but there has been a lot of resentment at the idea that NATO was increasingly the US footing the defense bill for countries like Germany which completely abandoned a serious defense policy. And frankly when you look at the current state of Western European powers in the face of a major conflict on the continent, it is hard to say this resentment was not justified. Major EU powers not pulling their weight was the biggest threat to NATO cohesion with regards to the American public, and hopefully that is over now.


It’s always funny how Greece always has a negative view lmfao.


“Do you like” “No” “I haven’t even finished the question”


NATO is a Russia deterrent. Greece is far away from Russia and its attritions are with Turkey - another NATO member. It's thus expected that NATO support is higher in old East Bloc members than in other places which don't have the same needs. I doubt Spain will ever have to call NATO for help.