I do not share their opinion. I just have given the good fight to try and make them understand why it wasn’t ok. Even if the dudes had guns of their own.
Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty states that an armed attack against one NATO member shall be considered an attack against all members, and triggers an obligation for each member to come to its assistance.
From the nato.int website. It reads to me that if a country refuses to come to the assistance of a country legitimately invoking the article, the country is breaching the treaty.
will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Depends what your definition of defence is though, doesn't it. NATO could just be considered to be defence of peace in which case yeah you could have a mandate to intervene in certain situations and it would still be in defensive peace.
I think you're trying to make a distinction without a purpose.
I think it’s my mistake for wording my comment in such a way that it sounds like I think the intervention in Yugoslavia was bad. That was not the point I was making, but I see how it could be interpreted as such.
Your mistake is disagreeing with a comment that said "NATO good". The nature of the disagreement is irrelevant. It's the centrist form of the tankie purity test.
Yea.. poor Yugoslavia that already faced three UN resolutions concluding their violation of basic human rights wasn't allowed to go on with their ethnic cleansing. Shocking! /s
Now your moving the goal post. I’m not arguing about if the UN is effective or not. Just arguing that the UN didn’t sanction the bombing, unlike you implied.
If there's ethnic cleansing going on, do you want to wait for the UN to act (in vain, because veto powers) or do you act based on the principles the UN should act on if it actually worked?
Because let's not pretend that the UN actually decided on the substance of that matter and decided against it based on what was happening. It never decided solely due to political reasons and its architecture.
If you want to hold that against NATO, fine. Sometimes, being technically correct isn't the thing to aspire.
The very premise that NATO, a military alliance consisting of the terrorist state and world hegemon USA and its vassals (the so-called global north, basically), does act on principles regarding human suffering in other countries is not based in material reality, but propagandised ideology.
In light of the other thread, you might be thinking of 1995. 1999 was a bit more like Iraq II, but more members participated since the genocide wasn't just a thing Dick Cheney made up.
NATO these days spends a lot of time just negotiating with itself to actually set up any defences, so these stories about the UN calling up NATO and saying "please bomb here", and then NATO just going "okay", are kind of alien to me.
At least in that circumstance there were already active hostilities that did threaten to flood NATO countries with Albanian refugees trying to escape ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, and a strong possibility that the conflict would expand into NATO states.
In this war with Iran there is nothing but Israeli bloodthirst and an American President who desperately needs a distraction and something to regroup his base.
How do you get there from what was an ongoing genocide and an immanent threat? Has NATO ever bombed a country because they might attack in 30 years? There is your answer.
Well, Iran having nukes could also be seen as an imminent threat. I just don’t see why one thing would be seen as defensive and the other thing wouldn’t be.
Iran was not about to have nukes. If you listen to Netanyahu, Iran has been a week away from having nukes for decades.
If Iran did get nukes, why would that be a threat? You think Iran would be interested in putting their arsenal up against the United States? Using a nuke would be national suicide. All it would do is provide them protection from regime change wars.
After popular pressure, NATO was asked by the United Nations to intervene in the Bosnian War after allegations of war crimes against civilians were made.
On 6 February 1994, a day after the first Markale marketplace massacre, UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali formally requested NATO to confirm that air strikes would be carried out immediately.[12] On 9 February, agreeing to the request of the UN, NATO authorized the Commander of Allied Joint Force Command Naples (CINCSOUTH), US Admiral Jeremy Boorda, to launch air strikes against artillery and mortar positions in and around Sarajevo that were determined by UNPROFOR to be responsible for attacks against civilian targets.
So far the only country I'm not appalled by their reaction is Spain. The rest are all so luke warm or plain wtf. Specially Germany. I feel like since WW1 they have an subscribtion on standing on the wrong side. Today they called in Iranian diplomats to tell them they should adhere to the rules of war and not bomb civilians.
Meanwhile Israel started off the war by bombing a primary school & hospital. But that's cool for the German goverment since Israel did not confirm they did it. So they are obviously adhering ho the rules of war.
Here's the problem, the second we (Germans) criticize Israel in any shape or form, they start calling us Nazis again. The vast majority of Germans disagree with war to solve problems.
Not only they call us Nazis but our laws call us nazis.
Solidarity with palastine is often Times already equated with Support for Hamas, which then in turn is interpreted as Support for antisemitic Terror Organisation and the you are held legally responsible for being antisemitic.
I bet there are already precedents when Israel was criticised and that was legally regarded as antisemitism, i am unaware of.
So the options are to either support a genocidal state and get praise, or to be called a nazi for not supporting a genocidal state? This logic is strange to me.
Well right now your country keeps advocating for an ongoing genocide so maybe just shrug off their accusations instead of siding with actual fascists again. You know, like some other mighty nations like, uh, Ireland have managed.
Even better, let's just dissolve the German state - younger than several toilets I've shat in - as a failed experiment that has not gone more than a few decades without perpetrating or endorsing some horrendous human rights abuses. Much easier to ignore baseless accusations when they're targeted at Saxony and Prussia and Bavaria than the state that still sings Deutschland Uber Alles In Der Welt.
The UK as shit as we are and as horrible as Starmer is have also refused to partake. Though we did send a ship to protect our base so who knows, but we don’t want to be dragged into another illegal war.
Dutchie here, before Mark Rutte was SG of NATO he was our PM for over a decade where he earned the nickname Teflon Mark: no scandal sticks, no political storm makes him wet. Why? Because he can say anything in a way that makes you believe he is telling the truth. Before you know it this man has no active memory of any meeting that was about not-joining and suddenly 'remember' a meeting about joining. If you do not want your country participating in this war, do not sit back and relax because this guy says it won't happen. He is not all bad, but i'd advise anyone (except Trump) to not take what he says too serious.
I'm all for a specific and localised Armageddon that takes out just Israel and the US. Sadly I don't think of Iran actually has the firepower to do that.
It's a tragedy other countries provide even passive support, and continue to support Israel even after Gaza genocide, which still continues, even if it's not during or for this campaign specifically. Years of human rights and international law violations, and there's no strong opposition or distancing. That initiative is hard to swallow.
Most insane to me is that, it’s EU who will have to deal with humanitarian crisis and spend more money supporting Ukraine to offset Russia’s oil profits from increasing prices.
Call me crazy but US seems to have more interest in supporting Russia’s war and destabilizing EU than destroying Iran’s regime. As part of this operation at least
seems intentional, like with russia causing a "mass migration" into the EU to illicit anti-immigration sentiment amongst the far right. seems like its working in that favor.
Withdrawing from NATO doesn't make sense. It would probably take upwards of 20-30 years to replace what would be lost by doing that. It's not worth it. I 100% agree with everything else you stated, though.
Withdrawing from NATO doesn’t make sense. It would probably take upwards of 20-30 years to replace what would be lost by doing that. It’s not worth it.
What are you on about? NATO is comprised of EU countries plus Canada (with rumors of Canada joining the EU)... and the US.
Withdrawing from NATO would basically mean dropping the US. In this timeline, that's very desirable, unless you're selling murican arms.
NATO is useless now.
I think NATO effectively no longer exists anyway - better to get rid of it sooner rather than later.
De facto NATO is dead, because the US - it's most powerful member - can no longer be trusted. I hope the political leaders of all other Member States see this.
But that doesn't mean it no longer any value. It's main goal has become deterrence, and Russia and China still need to be deterred.
because it has brought nothing but misery since the end of World War II.
This is totally false, you can argue it has brought misery but you cannot say it didn't bring any good.
The 80 years before it's creation (and the creation of the UN) have been much more violent than the 80 years since. Sure Asia and the Global South haven't shared in the peace it brought, but it's not like the west had brought peace there before.
There might be a better future without Nato, but i don't think the world as a whole would've been better off if Nato never existed in the first place. The Sovjet union would probably still be there for example, and except for the ruling class that was not a nice place to live in.
I see no reason not to let the existing world order collapse, because it has brought nothing but misery since the end of World War II.
How can you say that when the whole point of the existing world order was to prevent another World War II, which they have been successful at? There haven't been any wars with as many lives lost as that one ever since, largely in part due to the fact that every time someone looked like they wanted to take over the world again, the rest of the democratic world united to force them where otherwise divided they would succeed.
You said "since the end of World War II" not "since Trump was elected". How can I hold Trump responsible for things that happened before he was even born?
There's a good chance the situation will change significant in three years. It's worth to at least wait for that while acting right now either way but without completely giving up already.
That is good news and i fully agree. Fighting alongside the MAGA and Israeli nutters is not worth a single EU bone. Furthermore, we have the fucking Muscovites to worry about.
Strongly hoping for someone to just bomb the US and make them stop their crimes against humanity. They have so much real state to conquer and split and govern after that..
Imo he's buying time for Europe. Most people here obviously despise the US. But we made ourselves reliant on them in every way. If Trump wants, he can absolutely ruin is right now. We need to decouple, but that takes time. Rutte is trying to manipulate Trump until he's either gone or we're self-sufficient enough to not need him anymore. And yes that means praising him for doing dumb shit, for doing illegal shit. But if that keeps us afloat for another few months then that's what it takes.
Hey European, why don't you convert some of your riches into oil now that Russia is refusing to sell oil to Europe. Or you just gonna burn euros to keep yourself warm? 🤣
The world knows about Europe's military and it's a joke.
When America threatened to annex Greenland, every European country sent 1-2 soldiers to fight America. It's a massive joke 🤣
Money doesn't translate to military power. You need research, innovation and industry to turn money into firepower and Europe's aging population lacks that.
Moreover we all know how Europe got rich, and that is by looting wealth from Europe's colonies. Just like America stole 1 ton of gold from Venezuela 2 days ago.
174 Comments
Hubi@feddit.org · 154 pts · 174d
Well duh, it's a defensive alliance.
FlordaMan@lemmy.world · -41 pts · 174d
Tell that to the people of yugoslavia in 1999
Buffalox@lemmy.world · 85 pts · 174d
That was a humanitarian intervention to STOP a genocide.
I bet most were happy that the Serbians were reigned in. Even many Serbians.
NATO has intervened in situations where they had a UN mandate.
urandom@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 172d
Should’ve bombed Israel while there was still something left of Gaza then
Buffalox@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 172d
Absolutely. But USA has gotten steadily worse, esp. since Bush.
PissingIntoTheWind@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 174d
I know Serbians in the celebrity world of the country. They hate NATO for stepping in. We used to get into arguments about it.
Tinidril@midwest.social · 16 pts · 173d
A nation committing a genocide does tend to be aggravated by other nations interfering.
PissingIntoTheWind@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 172d
Per them. The Muslims killed Serbians. And they were armed as well. So it was only righttttttt that the Serbians killed them. /s
hector@lemmy.today · 0 pts · 166d
ah poor genocidal serbians? Piss off.
PissingIntoTheWind@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 164d
I do not share their opinion. I just have given the good fight to try and make them understand why it wasn’t ok. Even if the dudes had guns of their own.
nuko147@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 172d
83 upvotes for this... Man this species is doomed...
Also NATO in 1999 had used military force without the expressed endorsement of the UN Security Council and international legal approval.
Gladaed@feddit.org · -1 pts · 173d
They hadn't in Serbia. Not every illegal attacking war is bad. Reality is messy.
SlurpingPus@lemmy.world · -13 pts · 173d
Ah, so it's not a defensive alliance. Thanks for confirming.
Honytawk@discuss.tchncs.de · 13 pts · 173d
No it is, since not every member participated.
The whole operation was voluntary. The only reason it gets a NATO sticker is because only NATO members participated.
If it was an actual NATO operation, it would have been mandatory for all 32 nations. Not just the 13 that actually intervened.
BoJackHorseman@lemmy.today · -4 pts · 173d
Article 5 does not mandate every nation to participate if any one nation is attached. It is voluntary.
iglou@programming.dev · 8 pts · 173d
From the nato.int website. It reads to me that if a country refuses to come to the assistance of a country legitimately invoking the article, the country is breaching the treaty.
pupbiru@aussie.zone · 1 pts · 172d
the issue is the exact wording is
https://www.nato.int/en/what-we-do/introduction-to-nato/collective-defence-and-article-5
“such action as it deems necessary”
assistance can mean many things, and can be very very minimal… eg purposefully ineffective sanctions would satisfy “will assist”
Tja@programming.dev · 4 pts · 173d
That's the opposite of article 5
echodot@feddit.uk · 4 pts · 173d
Depends what your definition of defence is though, doesn't it. NATO could just be considered to be defence of peace in which case yeah you could have a mandate to intervene in certain situations and it would still be in defensive peace.
I think you're trying to make a distinction without a purpose.
SlurpingPus@lemmy.world · -3 pts · 173d
Ah, like the US.
Yes, under this ‘definition’ they could be intervening all over the world, including in Iran.
echodot@feddit.uk · 3 pts · 173d
No under the NATO definition of peace. Don't be moving the goal posts now.
Aqarius@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 173d
lol.
FlordaMan@lemmy.world · -18 pts · 174d
Well… I think a lot of people in Iran are also happy about these strikes.
But that does not change the fact that Nato is clearly not only defensive.
errer@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 174d
I don’t get the downvotes, you are correct. The OP’s comment that NATO only intervenes defensively is clearly wrong.
Should they intervene here? No, definitely not because this is a stupid, stupid war, and that’s reason enough.
FlordaMan@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 174d
I think it’s my mistake for wording my comment in such a way that it sounds like I think the intervention in Yugoslavia was bad. That was not the point I was making, but I see how it could be interpreted as such.
Aqarius@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 173d
Your mistake is disagreeing with a comment that said "NATO good". The nature of the disagreement is irrelevant. It's the centrist form of the tankie purity test.
Honytawk@discuss.tchncs.de · 5 pts · 173d
It wasn't a NATO operation though. It just involved NATO countries. The majority of NATO countries didn't participate.
Participation was voluntary. If it was a NATO operation, it would have been mandatory for every member.
GuyIncognito@lemmy.ca · -1 pts · 173d
BREAKING: German engineer invents nanofilmant capable of precisely splitting hair
Honytawk@discuss.tchncs.de · 1 pts · 172d
You don't need such a device, you can just read their website.
Eheran@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 174d
They were defending those people, no?
Tinidril@midwest.social · 1 pts · 173d
They were also defending themselves from a building refugee crisis.
Quittenbrot@feddit.org · 36 pts · 174d
Yea.. poor Yugoslavia that already faced three UN resolutions concluding their violation of basic human rights wasn't allowed to go on with their ethnic cleansing. Shocking! /s
FlordaMan@lemmy.world · -17 pts · 174d
Correct me if I’m wrong. But the UN didn’t mandate the intervention, right? Therefore nato was in violation of international law.
But that’s besides the point. I commented under a commenting claiming Nato is purely defensive. Which it clearly isn’t.
Quittenbrot@feddit.org · 7 pts · 174d
Pretty hard to get the UN to mandate anything substantial if there's almost always a veto power protecting its pawns...
FlordaMan@lemmy.world · -8 pts · 174d
Now your moving the goal post. I’m not arguing about if the UN is effective or not. Just arguing that the UN didn’t sanction the bombing, unlike you implied.
Quittenbrot@feddit.org · 7 pts · 174d
If there's ethnic cleansing going on, do you want to wait for the UN to act (in vain, because veto powers) or do you act based on the principles the UN should act on if it actually worked?
Because let's not pretend that the UN actually decided on the substance of that matter and decided against it based on what was happening. It never decided solely due to political reasons and its architecture.
If you want to hold that against NATO, fine. Sometimes, being technically correct isn't the thing to aspire.
doben@lemmy.wtf · -2 pts · 173d
The very premise that NATO, a military alliance consisting of the terrorist state and world hegemon USA and its vassals (the so-called global north, basically), does act on principles regarding human suffering in other countries is not based in material reality, but propagandised ideology.
Aqarius@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 173d
So, when Israel...
ohulancutash@feddit.uk · 3 pts · 173d
You are wrong. NATO was under UN mandate.
Aqarius@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 173d
No, it was not.
Gladaed@feddit.org · -2 pts · 173d
You are clearly right. It was an illegal attack.
yucandu@lemmy.world · 34 pts · 174d
I did, they were in my class growing up in Canada, they said thanks. Have you talked to any of those people who fled that genocide?
FlordaMan@lemmy.world · -20 pts · 174d
Not my point at all. I did in no way say it was unjustified. I was just saying it was offensive and thus contradicted what the original comment said.
CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org · 9 pts · 174d
You know, I don't actually know how that unfolded. Was it NATO itself, or just all the NATO members? I kind of assumed it was like Iraq.
ohulancutash@feddit.uk · 3 pts · 173d
It was NATO itself, operating under a UN mandate.
NATO also had a mission in Iraq.
CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org · 3 pts · 173d
In light of the other thread, you might be thinking of 1995. 1999 was a bit more like Iraq II, but more members participated since the genocide wasn't just a thing Dick Cheney made up.
NATO these days spends a lot of time just negotiating with itself to actually set up any defences, so these stories about the UN calling up NATO and saying "please bomb here", and then NATO just going "okay", are kind of alien to me.
Aqarius@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 173d
What UN mandate? They explicitly didn't have one, because China and Russia would block it.
ohulancutash@feddit.uk · 4 pts · 173d
NATO was enforcing S/RES/1199, which demanded the end of action which affected civilians and end military action.
Tinidril@midwest.social · 10 pts · 174d
At least in that circumstance there were already active hostilities that did threaten to flood NATO countries with Albanian refugees trying to escape ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, and a strong possibility that the conflict would expand into NATO states.
In this war with Iran there is nothing but Israeli bloodthirst and an American President who desperately needs a distraction and something to regroup his base.
FlordaMan@lemmy.world · -10 pts · 174d
I guess? But where does nato draw the line? Does it bomb a country because it can possibly attack a nato memberstate in 30 years?
Tinidril@midwest.social · 7 pts · 174d
How do you get there from what was an ongoing genocide and an immanent threat? Has NATO ever bombed a country because they might attack in 30 years? There is your answer.
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 174d
I mean, this would be plenty of justification for bombing texas
FlordaMan@lemmy.world · -6 pts · 174d
Well, Iran having nukes could also be seen as an imminent threat. I just don’t see why one thing would be seen as defensive and the other thing wouldn’t be.
Tinidril@midwest.social · 4 pts · 174d
Iran was not about to have nukes. If you listen to Netanyahu, Iran has been a week away from having nukes for decades.
If Iran did get nukes, why would that be a threat? You think Iran would be interested in putting their arsenal up against the United States? Using a nuke would be national suicide. All it would do is provide them protection from regime change wars.
hector@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 166d
I'm sorry, Serbia was seized by gangsters and gangsterizing their neighbors. Fuck them.
sidebro@lemmy.zip · -13 pts · 174d
Or Bosnia in 95
Buffalox@lemmy.world · 26 pts · 174d
Nato intervened when Serbian forces committed genocide against the Bosnians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_War
That's when NATO decided to intervene.
Zirconium@lemmy.world · 20 pts · 174d
How come the one conflict where NATO was in the right and defended an ethnic Muslim minority is what people chose to die arguing against
yucandu@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 174d
Because it made Russia and China really nervous and that's the propaganda they choose to spread through leftist circles.
Loce@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 174d
*rightist
yucandu@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 174d
Well they both hate NATO now yeah.
sidebro@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 173d
I see your point but it was an offensive action. But in defence, I suppose.
Aqarius@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 173d
That was four years before 1999.
SlurpingPus@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 173d
Was Bosnia a member of NATO in 1995?
Quittenbrot@feddit.org · 17 pts · 174d
Sure?
Kennystillalive@feddit.org · 84 pts · 174d
So far the only country I'm not appalled by their reaction is Spain. The rest are all so luke warm or plain wtf. Specially Germany. I feel like since WW1 they have an subscribtion on standing on the wrong side. Today they called in Iranian diplomats to tell them they should adhere to the rules of war and not bomb civilians.
Meanwhile Israel started off the war by bombing a primary school & hospital. But that's cool for the German goverment since Israel did not confirm they did it. So they are obviously adhering ho the rules of war.
Gammelfisch@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 174d
Here's the problem, the second we (Germans) criticize Israel in any shape or form, they start calling us Nazis again. The vast majority of Germans disagree with war to solve problems.
hitmyspot@aussie.zone · 28 pts · 174d
Better to be called a Nazi than to aid a Nazi.
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 174d
let them call you nazis. criticize them and let people see the truth and whether it is you or them that is the nazi.
derAbsender@piefed.social · 3 pts · 173d
Not only they call us Nazis but our laws call us nazis.
Solidarity with palastine is often Times already equated with Support for Hamas, which then in turn is interpreted as Support for antisemitic Terror Organisation and the you are held legally responsible for being antisemitic.
I bet there are already precedents when Israel was criticised and that was legally regarded as antisemitism, i am unaware of.
cv_octavio@piefed.ca · 3 pts · 173d
pmk@piefed.ca · 2 pts · 173d
So the options are to either support a genocidal state and get praise, or to be called a nazi for not supporting a genocidal state? This logic is strange to me.
TheOctonaut@piefed.zip · 1 pts · 173d
Well right now your country keeps advocating for an ongoing genocide so maybe just shrug off their accusations instead of siding with actual fascists again. You know, like some other mighty nations like, uh, Ireland have managed.
Even better, let's just dissolve the German state - younger than several toilets I've shat in - as a failed experiment that has not gone more than a few decades without perpetrating or endorsing some horrendous human rights abuses. Much easier to ignore baseless accusations when they're targeted at Saxony and Prussia and Bavaria than the state that still sings Deutschland Uber Alles In Der Welt.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 5 pts · 173d
perhaps spain doesnt have alot of israeli inteference or rich billionaire backers as the rest of the EU?
dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de · 5 pts · 174d
The UK as shit as we are and as horrible as Starmer is have also refused to partake. Though we did send a ship to protect our base so who knows, but we don’t want to be dragged into another illegal war.
itistime@infosec.pub · 5 pts · 174d
I hope he doesn’t cave to pressure. His recent media imagery has him looking like a whipped pup
huppakee@piefed.social · 69 pts · 174d
Dutchie here, before Mark Rutte was SG of NATO he was our PM for over a decade where he earned the nickname Teflon Mark: no scandal sticks, no political storm makes him wet. Why? Because he can say anything in a way that makes you believe he is telling the truth. Before you know it this man has no active memory of any meeting that was about not-joining and suddenly 'remember' a meeting about joining. If you do not want your country participating in this war, do not sit back and relax because this guy says it won't happen. He is not all bad, but i'd advise anyone (except Trump) to not take what he says too serious.
MrSulu@lemmy.ml · 36 pts · 173d
Thank you Rutte.
Dear Donald, please now apply the same trade war to all NATO nations as you have to Spain. I dare ya'.
nothingcorporate@lemmy.today · 34 pts · 174d
It's like they don't even want to bring around armageddon!
echodot@feddit.uk · 7 pts · 173d
I'm all for a specific and localised Armageddon that takes out just Israel and the US. Sadly I don't think of Iran actually has the firepower to do that.
ulterno@programming.dev · 1 pts · 173d
I think they were referring to the speech given to the US troops.
Kissaki@feddit.org · 33 pts · 173d
It's a tragedy other countries provide even passive support, and continue to support Israel even after Gaza genocide, which still continues, even if it's not during or for this campaign specifically. Years of human rights and international law violations, and there's no strong opposition or distancing. That initiative is hard to swallow.
DandomRude@piefed.social · 31 pts · 174d
Lysergid@lemmy.ml · 20 pts · 174d
Most insane to me is that, it’s EU who will have to deal with humanitarian crisis and spend more money supporting Ukraine to offset Russia’s oil profits from increasing prices.
Call me crazy but US seems to have more interest in supporting Russia’s war and destabilizing EU than destroying Iran’s regime. As part of this operation at least
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 3 pts · 173d
seems intentional, like with russia causing a "mass migration" into the EU to illicit anti-immigration sentiment amongst the far right. seems like its working in that favor.
Kissaki@feddit.org · 1 pts · 173d
The US has labeled the EU its number one enemy. Destabilizing the EU as a goal isn't very far fetched, even if not a primary goal.
EU passive stance can be seen as pragmatic or necessary, or injust and severely lacking depending on how you look at it.
sidebro@lemmy.zip · 13 pts · 174d
Withdrawing from NATO doesn't make sense. It would probably take upwards of 20-30 years to replace what would be lost by doing that. It's not worth it. I 100% agree with everything else you stated, though.
MousePotatoDoesStuff@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 174d
In that case, better start preparing for that replacement as soon as possible. Ideally way back when the US invoked Article 5 the first time.
0x0@lemmy.zip · -2 pts · 173d
What are you on about? NATO is comprised of EU countries plus Canada (with rumors of Canada joining the EU)... and the US.
Withdrawing from NATO would basically mean dropping the US. In this timeline, that's very desirable, unless you're selling murican arms.
NATO is useless now.
Honytawk@discuss.tchncs.de · 0 pts · 172d
That is only true if you want every single NATO country to be unable to defend themselves from Russian aggression.
No country want to be part of Russia, even the ones that aren't in NATO want to join because of how hostile Russia is.
NATO is even more important now than it ever was. That is why it is growing, not shrinking.
Putin is the reason NATO needs to exist.
DandomRude@piefed.social · -5 pts · 174d
huppakee@piefed.social · 14 pts · 174d
De facto NATO is dead, because the US - it's most powerful member - can no longer be trusted. I hope the political leaders of all other Member States see this.
But that doesn't mean it no longer any value. It's main goal has become deterrence, and Russia and China still need to be deterred.
This is totally false, you can argue it has brought misery but you cannot say it didn't bring any good.
The 80 years before it's creation (and the creation of the UN) have been much more violent than the 80 years since. Sure Asia and the Global South haven't shared in the peace it brought, but it's not like the west had brought peace there before.
There might be a better future without Nato, but i don't think the world as a whole would've been better off if Nato never existed in the first place. The Sovjet union would probably still be there for example, and except for the ruling class that was not a nice place to live in.
yucandu@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 174d
How can you say that when the whole point of the existing world order was to prevent another World War II, which they have been successful at? There haven't been any wars with as many lives lost as that one ever since, largely in part due to the fact that every time someone looked like they wanted to take over the world again, the rest of the democratic world united to force them where otherwise divided they would succeed.
DandomRude@piefed.social · 0 pts · 174d
yucandu@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 174d
You said "since the end of World War II" not "since Trump was elected". How can I hold Trump responsible for things that happened before he was even born?
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 174d
well i got this pitchfork and this pitch and this lighter. you got a big piece of wood?
Kissaki@feddit.org · 0 pts · 173d
There's a good chance the situation will change significant in three years. It's worth to at least wait for that while acting right now either way but without completely giving up already.
DandomRude@piefed.social · 2 pts · 173d
IAmYouButYouDontKnowYet@reddthat.com · 5 pts · 174d
Aren't we all learning globally our governments aren't what they tell us they are?
DandomRude@piefed.social · 7 pts · 174d
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 173d
its actually like .05-.01 richest people, the real billionaires.
yucandu@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 174d
The exploitation didn't really start until the 1980's. Before then, the population was benefiting as well.
yucandu@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 174d
No, I live in a functioning democracy, don't normalize your electoral college nonsense on me.
yucandu@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 174d
Why would the EU withdraw from NATO? What has NATO done to piss them off?
DandomRude@piefed.social · 2 pts · 174d
yucandu@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 174d
Right, so the EU wouldn't withdraw from NATO, they would kick the US out of it.
Although NATO has survived hotter internal conflicts before, it can probably come out of this intact if Trump turns out to be an abberation.
Gammelfisch@lemmy.world · 25 pts · 174d
That is good news and i fully agree. Fighting alongside the MAGA and Israeli nutters is not worth a single EU bone. Furthermore, we have the fucking Muscovites to worry about.
Bieren@lemmy.today · 25 pts · 174d
How dare NATO not invoke article 5 because Iran defended themselves!
devfuuu@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 173d
Strongly hoping for someone to just bomb the US and make them stop their crimes against humanity. They have so much real state to conquer and split and govern after that..
gajustempus@feddit.org · 16 pts · 173d
We had that in 2001. Didn't go so well...
Kissaki@feddit.org · 2 pts · 173d
Trump is already doing that, but through a different route. They don't need to bomb there. They're using other means.
0x0@lemmy.zip · 10 pts · 173d
Oh, sure, most EU countries allow US bases to be used but we can al be grateful NATO won't join the war...
Jay101@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 172d
"They will join it individually"
hector@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 166d
They didn't even bother to get countries to go along in theory like the Bush administration's dumbass.
kamayatu24@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 173d
Expected
hector@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 166d
I would think not.
lithiumground@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 173d
Merz is puppet of USA like this guy explained : https://lemmy.world/post/43726633/22438250
yucandu@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 174d
No shit point to me in the map where Israel is in the North Atlantic.
brainwashed@feddit.org · 3 pts · 173d
Turkey is not either. But Israel is no Nato member.
GuyIncognito@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 173d
Israel is much more than a NATO member, Israel is actually important to America
GuyIncognito@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 173d
israel and america are the same entity, so israel is in the north atlantic
mortemtyrannis@lemmy.ml · -7 pts · 174d
Rutte can go and get fucked.
He is a lapdog to the USA and doesn’t protect or advocate for European interests.
I expected better from Europe but you’re all just colonialists.
gerryflap@feddit.nl · 3 pts · 173d
Imo he's buying time for Europe. Most people here obviously despise the US. But we made ourselves reliant on them in every way. If Trump wants, he can absolutely ruin is right now. We need to decouple, but that takes time. Rutte is trying to manipulate Trump until he's either gone or we're self-sufficient enough to not need him anymore. And yes that means praising him for doing dumb shit, for doing illegal shit. But if that keeps us afloat for another few months then that's what it takes.
genau@europe.pub · 1 pts · 171d
Yeah fuck them Albanian colonialist.
BoJackHorseman@lemmy.today · -20 pts · 173d
LOL US IS NATO. All other countries are for decoration. Let's not kid ourselves.
EDIT: Europoors coping hard with this comment. But it's true.
iglou@programming.dev · 5 pts · 173d
The geopolitics level of the average american
Goldholz@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 173d
Tell me you dont know how NATO works without telling me
BoJackHorseman@lemmy.today · -4 pts · 173d
NATO is nothing without the US. Let's stop playing pretend games. We've entered WWIII
Honytawk@discuss.tchncs.de · 1 pts · 172d
Even without the US, the combined effort of all other NATO countries is more than strong enough to defend against Russia and other external threats.
We may seem peaceful, but we are far from harmless. We are a bunch of the richest countries on the planet after all.
WW3 would only happen if Putin is too stupid to understand this.
BoJackHorseman@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 167d
Hey European, why don't you convert some of your riches into oil now that Russia is refusing to sell oil to Europe. Or you just gonna burn euros to keep yourself warm? 🤣
BoJackHorseman@lemmy.today · 0 pts · 172d
The world knows about Europe's military and it's a joke.
When America threatened to annex Greenland, every European country sent 1-2 soldiers to fight America. It's a massive joke 🤣
Money doesn't translate to military power. You need research, innovation and industry to turn money into firepower and Europe's aging population lacks that.
Moreover we all know how Europe got rich, and that is by looting wealth from Europe's colonies. Just like America stole 1 ton of gold from Venezuela 2 days ago.