this post was submitted on 07 Feb 2025
237 points (98.0% liked)

World News

40512 readers
3034 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 [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

NATO allies informally discussed deploying troops to Greenland after Trump threatened military action to seize the Danish territory.

Germany and other European nations explored possible responses, including invoking NATO’s Article 5, though it was ruled out due to US veto power.

Denmark pledged $1.5 billion to bolster Arctic security, while NATO considered expanding its presence.

Trump cites strategic concerns over Russian and Chinese influence and US missile defense. NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte acknowledged Arctic security needs but sought to defuse tensions.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 50 points 3 days ago (5 children)

Germany and other European nations explored possible responses, including invoking NATO’s Article 5, though it was ruled out due to US veto power.

And this is the only reason why Trump didn't pull the US out of NATO.
Because of the veto power, he can effectively block them from taking action against the United States.
NATO is dead.
If other world leaders had half a brain between them, they would be forming a new alliance without the United States as we speak.

[–] [email protected] 40 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The new alliance already exists. It’s called the European Union.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 3 days ago (2 children)

The EU doesn't include the UK, Canada, Norway, or Turkey. It isn't really a good NATO substitute.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Yeah, we really need some kind of external European defence sphere to cover us in Canada. No amount of maple syrup (or rare earth metals) is too great a cost.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Two of those are Commonwealth countries. Maybe a common defense mechanism could be agreed. Instead of Iron Dome, it could be called King Dome.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 days ago

You could make all kinds of jokes about king dome come.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago

I guess, but the UK is a pretty shit-tier nuclear power. I'd really want it to include France.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 days ago

There's nothing stopping them from just ignoring the veto of the country they're worried about...

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 days ago (2 children)

They could also kick out the United States.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 3 days ago (2 children)

They literally can't, the US is a permanent member.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 3 days ago

We're seeing from the White House that written words, rules, and laws are meaningless to them. They're only a permanent member because words say so, and the members are willing to honour those words. If the USA were to attack another NATO member I'm sure those words can and will be ignored.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 days ago

They could reorganize as “NOT-U” under all the same terms but without the US.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

NATO has no provision to remove members. It's even worse than the EU where a single other member is enough to veto it.

Stop doing that, Western leaders. 3/4 vote should be enough for anything.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 days ago

Yes, a new military alliance and other new non-US Western treaties needs to happen. Badly.

Although, he's saying he wants 5% spending from all members now, so maybe he's still planning to "shoot himself in the foot" by leaving.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

"We'll make our own NATO, with blackjack and hookers!"

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago

That was the CSTO and Armenia says the only good thing it had was the hookers...