this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2026
202 points (99.0% liked)

World News

57265 readers
1840 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 60 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

“If an American president says he no longer wishes to defend the other allies and leaves a NATO summit in protest, then the NATO treaty and its security guarantee aren’t worth very much,” Stoltenberg wrote.

This is absolute bullshit, BTW. NATO leaders have a history of seriously overvaluing the necessity of the US to the alliance.

Yes, obviously, having the world's biggest military power on your side is a really good thing. But, with or without the US, NATO can still be a force for mutual defence. It's a far better thing to have than not have, and defeatist bullshit like this is just kicking the trusses out for no good reason.

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 8 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The issue is that the US provides a lot of logistics and supply chain support to the rest of NATO countries which makes it very difficult for them to operate without US support. It is made worse as many NATO nations are too small to meaningfully fill specialty units when they can barely provide basic infantry and armor units.

One of the reasons why France keeps pushing for an EU military is so that there is a government entity large enough to fund and pay for these specialty units. Otherwise, France would have to unfairly take on the burden of providing these capabilities itself.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

Military satellites are almost entirely US right now, as well. There's a gap in AWACS and similar, but it's closing.

In theory, it should just be a matter of reorganising for the rest of NATO to do their own military logistics. We have the basic equipment and expertise needed.

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

There are gaps, but those gaps can be fixed. There's a reason Saab are getting so many orders for GlobalEye.

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The problem is that it doesn't make sense for one country to bear the cost of developing those specialty items when you don't have a country like the US who would do it on its own anyway. There is likely going to need to be a pooling of resources to fund the construction of these items. If you're going to have to pool resources, what entity is going to be the best in receiving these resources and executing contacts to get these capabilities built?

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Maybe you're getting at the one big army concept, but it's not really politically possible, at this point. In practice, it'll be a smattering of the large nations, with cooperation from smaller nations. The French will probably be key for satellites in specific, because of Guyana.

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 1 points 3 weeks ago

It doesn't have to be one big army, but it can be a big army designed to take care of the stuff that individual countries can't. After all, it is unfair to put the financial burden to build out the expensive and necessary logistics on the large nations.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 3 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

It's because NATO was never just about mutual defense. It's part of the broader Western Bloc, which absolutely doesn't make sense without America at the helm. In the first place none of NATO's member states have had defensive problems that require anything that massive since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 weeks ago (16 children)

I'd suggest that you try saying this to someone in Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia or Poland, but I don't actually want you to get punched out.

[–] mrdown@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 3 weeks ago

I suggest you to say this to Libyan. It was a block created by imperialist to fight the ussr imperialism. I do not believe in dissolving Nato but rather making it a readl defense organization independent of the usa and not being ally with israel

load more comments (15 replies)
[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

none of NATO's member states have had defensive problems

Why do we need vaccines? Everyone vaccinated never got sick.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 2 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

I mean, who's gonna fuck with Spain? France? Britain? Germany? Italy? Canada? Many countries in NATO are safe from foreign aggression for decades to come, NATO or no NATO. If so many of the major members in the defensive alliance don't need defending, then it's probably not a defensive alliance.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 2 points 3 weeks ago (7 children)

There have recently been direct annexation threats against Canada.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] mrdown@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Yes, obviously, having the world's biggest military power on your side is a really good thing

It is never good. You become dependent on it and countries aliance change all the time

[–] BestBouclettes@jlai.lu 2 points 3 weeks ago

Which is exactly what happened here

[–] Lushed_Lungfish@lemmy.ca 19 points 3 weeks ago

NATO literally only came together to fight exactly once. When America asked it to. The fuck more do they want?

[–] ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world 14 points 3 weeks ago

This is all saber-rattling on the part of Krasnov and has been since day one.

If the US were going to leave NATO he'd have already started that process. With every day that goes by his own leverage at home is shrinking, while Ukraine still has many supporters in positions of power, meaning that if Krasnov really did want to pull the US out of NATO, it is becoming politically harder and harder to do so.

Additionally, being in NATO is also protective for the US, and this is not without value given as many wars as this fucker has already begun on a whim: somebody somewhere might want to hit back, and remaining in NATO helps deter that to some extent.

So instead, Krasnov just keeps threatening and not doing, even as his own position gets weaker and weaker.

Compare and contrast this with Russia. Saber-rattling is high on the list of Putin's methodology of controlling his nearest neighbors and always has been, but the US has never had to, and why would it?

The simple fact is that the US can't leave NATO for as long as Krasnov is Putin's puppet, because keeping Ukraine OUT of NATO is far more important to Putin than any other consideration.

The second the US leaves NATO is the second the US can no longer veto Ukraine's admission.

So who benefits by all this threatening and not doing? Putin. Krasnov got another phone call and here we are again.

[–] abbadon420@sh.itjust.works 14 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Rutte is very good at sucking Trump's dick. He'll probably resolve this soon enough

[–] mrdown@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)
[–] weaselsrippedmyflesh@piefed.social 9 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Your move, Rutte. Gonna cup the balls while you gargle the knob, this time? Or are you gonna grow a spine and rip the band-aid?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Faithless@lemmy.world 8 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Time to throw the US out. They are a cancer

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 3 weeks ago

What?

You mean that Rutte's "strategy" of having his tongue pretty much glued to Trump's ass hasn't actually resulted in Trump thinking of himself as "just another member in a group for the common good"?

That's totally unexpected!!!

[–] MonsterMonster@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Hey Rutte, reach down the front of YOUR trousers and find a pair of balls.

[–] betanumerus@lemmy.ca 5 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Lunatic still confuses "individual human called Donald Trump" and "nation called US, regardless of who it contains". NATO is an agreement between nations, not individual humans. "Loyalty" has no place in there.

[–] kreskin@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

If the US loses its network of bases around the world it's screwed forever.

I do wonder if this has anything to do with the US looking to merge our military with Israel's, and moving CENTCOM to Israel. I know those arent NATO issues exactly, but I imagine they are complicated ideas in light of our NATO obligations.

[–] oyzmo@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

Don't you understand!? We want you to be a branch of the great, marvellous, bestes ever US military. We want you to jump when our greatest, glorious, godly, mastermind leader says jump. This is so an honour for you!

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Rutte's sole job for the next 2.5 years is to keep the US in NATO.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 2 points 3 weeks ago (7 children)

Or, alternately, preparing NATO for America's exit. I could easily see a scenario where they're more trouble than they're worth.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 1 points 3 weeks ago

that started more than a year ago.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›