NATO chief says some European allies were tested and failed in Iran war

https://www.reuters.com/world/nato-chief-says-some-european-allies-were-tested-failed-iran-war-2026-04-08/

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said on Wednesday he believes that some NATO ‌countries were tested and failed amid Washington's criticism over European allies not getting involved in the U.S. and Israel's war against Iran.

19 points · 22 comments · view on lemmy.world

22 Comments

mech@feddit.org · 45 pts · 131d (11 replies)

NATO was officially founded as a defensive alliance to ensure if one member is attacked, others will support them.
No NATO member was attacked by Iran, Palestine, Lebanon or Yemen. So the war had nothing to do with NATO.

I do know NATO was always used offensively and to tie its members to America's illegal wars without a UN resolution.

john_t@piefed.ee · 9 pts · 130d (9 replies)

The defensive pact doesn't even cover that area of the world.
Portuguese India was invaded in the 60's and NATO didn't step in.

Article 6

For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America , on the Algerian Departments of France, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.

Humanius@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 130d (8 replies)

I don't think that matters all that much. It didn't matter back when NATO members backed up the US in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The difference between then and now is that America wants Europe to back them up militarily, but in turn does not want to provide the security guarantees that are fundamental to the alliance.

Melchior@feddit.org · 6 pts · 130d (1 reply)

Afghanistan was due to 9/11, which happened very obviously in North America.

Iraq had nothing to do with NATO, besides a lot of NATO countries fighting in the war. However France, Germany, Canada and a few others did not join.

Humanius@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 130d

It is true that Afghanistan was a direct consequence of the US triggering Article 5 following 9/11, so it makes sense that that would be considered a NATO mission.

Iraq is not a NATO mission on paper, but NATO allies backing up the US in Iraq is still an example of NATO allies backing up the US militarily as part of the unspoken agreement of NATO.

The US provides security guarantees for Europe, and in exchange Europe backs up the US in their escapades.

teyrnon@sh.itjust.works · -5 pts · 130d (5 replies)

None of the other nato countries put anything more than a perfunctionary effort into helping the US in Afghanistan though, except the UK sort of but they still were half assed. Most sent non lethal aid. I know the Danes and the UK sent actual troops, but not many. Idk who else.

They all just did it to say they did, to appease the US.

Humanius@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 130d (4 replies)

Sorry, but that is simply not true. Nearly every European ally sent troops to Afghanistan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participants_in_Operation_Enduring_Freedom

I know the American president likes to pretend we were not there, and didn't do anything noteworthy. But that is simply a lie, aimed to break trust in NATO.

teyrnon@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 130d

Yeah I said they sent troops, most of them were not in combat, and were paltry numbers. Perfunctionary support.

Which is a good thing Afghanistan was bullshit from the start and we all should all know it by now.

teyrnon@sh.itjust.works · -2 pts · 130d (2 replies)

Okay so here is a source, at it's peak, like 10 years after it started, all of the non-us soldiers involved numbered at 10,000.

https://www.reuters.com/world/india/blood-billions-dollars-natos-long-war-afghanistan-2021-08-13/

Humanius@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 130d (1 reply)

NATO's troop presence peaked in 2011, with more than 130,000 foreign troops from 51 allied and partner countries in Afghanistan. Since 2003, NATO has trained hundreds of thousands of Afghan troops and police officers, including establishing an Afghan air force.

The international military coalition has suffered over 3,500 fatalities since 2001, among them around 2,400 Americans, according to U.S. Congress data. More than 20,000 U.S. troops were wounded in action. The website www.icasulaties.org, puts the total number of fatalities at 3,577. Tens of thousands of Afghan police and soldiers were killed.

From your own source..

Stop pretending America's allies did not do anything in Afghanistan. It is disrespectful to the veterans and those that lost their lives there.

teyrnon@sh.itjust.works · -2 pts · 130d

News articles listing the number of foreign troops in Afghanistan were very small amounts, and that $130,000 figure seems to directly contradict what was directly in front of it which is what I cited and is as follows

'. In 2015, the mission, known as ISAF, was replaced by a training operation, Resolute Support. As of April, it numbered around 10,000 troops from 36 nations.

The international military coalition has suffered over 3,500 fatalities since 2001, among them around 2,400 Americans, according to U.S. Congress data. More than 20,000 U.S. troops were wounded in action. The website www.icasulaties.org, opens new tab puts the total number of fatalities at 3,577. Tens of thousands of Afghan police and soldiers were killed.'

Furthermore, the more you were involved the more you suck as far as I'm concerned. Bunch of fucking whores to the United States Empire that has such bad fucking leadership they can't do anything right. I knew it but you didn't know it? So maybe you were more involved in sucking my bad.

Numbers I saw were like several hundred from a European country, at least of combat troops, the UK may be several thousand. Those were numbers that I saw at the time in the newspapers. 130,000 foreign troops does not seem accurate, are you trying to tell me there were 130,000 NATO allies in Afghanistan at that time? Bullshit.

Humanius@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 130d

NATO being used offensively is part of the unspoken agreement. America would guarantee European defence, and in exchange Europe would back America up in their many escapades around the world.

Trump has repeatedly threatened not to come to Europe's defence in case of a Russian invasion, and has even threatened to invade a fellow NATO member himself. He also does not treat his European allies as allies, but rather as vassals who have to do exactly as he says. The US and Israel unilaterally invading Iran without discussing this with NATO is another example of that.

This kind of behaviour erodes the trust and goodwill that the NATO alliance is based on. It breaks the unspoken agreement.
So why would Europe come and rescue the US out of the mess they made?

Trump gets to slowly figure out what it means for America to lose its soft power.

Grizzlywer@feddit.org · 34 pts · 131d (1 reply)

Yeah, whatever NATO has to do with Iran. Fuck Rutte

SrMono@feddit.org · 18 pts · 131d

He lost his track while pandering Trump.

But to be fair, the headline doesn’t reflect the short article well enough.

teyrnon@sh.itjust.works · 19 pts · 130d

The only Nato country that failed a test was the US.

avidamoeba@lemmy.ca · 13 pts · 131d

Now that he's shown the game to everyone it's probably time to replace this mfker with someone representing Europe's interest. An EU defence alliance might also be a good idea.

Melchior@feddit.org · 11 pts · 130d

Fine then move US troops out of Spain, Italy and Germany or whatever countries Trump does not like today.

ChristerMLB@piefed.social · 8 pts · 130d

I dunno. It seems like an attempt at "Trump whispering", but like calling Trump "daddy", I doubt it's an approach that gets Rutte any respect from Trump.

androidul@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 131d

oh, we’re doing tests now? no one got the memo

GreenBeanMachine@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 130d

[ removed ]

trollercoaster@sh.itjust.works · 6 pts · 130d

If he absolutely has to crawl up Uncle Donnie's arse, he should at least do us the favour of going in head first, so we don't have to suffer his verbal diarrhea while he's stuck up there.

Paragone@lemmy.world · -4 pts · 130d (1 reply)

THIS is the problem with not having explicit criteria for contributing, & therefore explicit criteria for NOT contributing:

HAD other NATO countries publically insisted that there was a real, workable, objective framework for dismantling the war as a prerequisite to contributing .. THEN Trump wouldn't be able to false-frame it this way.

He was, being a Russian asset, fundamentally, already committed to dismantling NATO, & that inaction handed him leverage to swing more of the world with..

Yes, MAGA's got more ideological "ammunition", now, thanks to that mental-mushiness.

grr..

Best-practices CAN make difference, in many contexts!

_ /\ _

trollercoaster@sh.itjust.works · 7 pts · 130d

With deranged and demented serial liars like Trump, it really doesn't matter what you do, they will always find a way to frame everything as being your fault.