[femiagbabiaka]

This is a pretty naive view of the reality of NATO. In reality NATO is from its founding a U.S. lead mission that was created to suppress what was then the Soviet Union. This is explicitly stated by the first heads of NATO. To achieve that purpose the U.S. has done all sorts of nefarious things from recruiting former Nazi generals to invading and regime changing countries. Taking the propaganda of any world power as truth is a mistake, and I’m surprised about how many people on HN seem to be doing it. Learning about the history of NATO is the bare minimum that should be done before claiming to educate others about it.

[colpabar]

Can you recommend some good sources on NATO's history? Ideally sources that won't show up on the first page of google please.

[femiagbabiaka]

If I had to pick one, I would recommend the recent series by podcast TrueAnon on NATO. It's up to date and timely -- they discuss the context of Ukraine for example. Caveats are that it can be irreverent at times (if you can't tell by the name heh) and it has a severe left-wing tilt, although not to a delusional degree in my opinion. It's well sourced, and will give you the knowledge to follow up with your own research in those places you are skeptical.

[tptacek]

Getting analysis of Ukraine from Mark Ames is like getting analysis of Sandy Hook from Alex Jones. There are credible people with a skeptical take on the Ukraine situation --- Mearsheimer is a good example. TrueAnon is not.

[femiagbabiaka]

TrueAnon has Mark Ames on often -- well, twice, at least, but he is not a core member of the podcast, and was not featured on these episodes.

EDIT: I do agree that Mearsheimer is another good person to learn from, but I don't know of an article or video from him that takes a holistic view at things