Question in title. Just wondering as I saw France had proposed an initiative to withdraw because of the US’ shenanigans…
We don’t need to kick out the USA. We should obviously not be sharing Intel any longer but the proof will ultimately be in the pudding. If the USA attacks a NATO ally, NATO rallies to their defence as per article V and the USA is no longer involved.
If anyone else attacks a NATO ally and the USA refuse to abide by article V (despite being the only previous ones to invoke it, dragging many of its (formerly) closest allies into a 2 decade quagmire, then they are no longer in NATO.
If nothing happens and the USA does nothing, we remain in this dog shit status quo
Wouldn’t be NATO then, it would be EATO
Canada is still in it, Don’t get much more “North Atlantic” then that.
The US is a founder. It would be hard to.
It’s just best to be the EU and extend membership.
The sacred no homers
just make a new alliance.
Call it NOUSA
NO U
I think this gets discussed in the context of the European Union whenever Poland or Hungary uses their veto power to block something important. Basically, the idea is to start “EU 2” and then not invite the offending countries. Then say that EU 2 replaces EU 1 and refuse to let anyone else tell you otherwise.
s/Poland/Slovakia/
yeah, i think ppl just need to remember: everything about society is made up. these things aren’t handed down by God. they are not eternal.
they were made by man, and they can be replaced. all we lack is the will to do so.
To be fair, while this is technically true, NATO also has like, staff and infrastructure and shit
yes, for sure. i didn’t say it was easy, but if we want to, we can. we can do just about anything.
The incredibly short treaty (I’m surprised the comments haven’t linked yet) lacks an expulsion provision. At best, per article 13, every other party may (with 1 year notice) withdraw from the treaty & join a new treaty excluding the party they want to expel. Article 8 prohibits parties of the treaty from entering “into any international engagement in conflict with this Treaty”.
A unanimous agreement to change the treaty to enable expulsion is another possibility.
The US has access to all of the systems. From a security standpoint they would want to build a new organization.
And then they will use US made systems. But the vendors will locate some computers in Europe, so it’s totally sovereign.
And we will not take being fired well.
Now Excluding America Treaty Organization (NEATO)
Neat.
Neature
as far as i understand it, nato does not have any democratic principles in its rules because was assumed that everyone in it wants the same thing, so everything needs to be done with full agreement. that’s why sweden and finland were blocked from entering for multiple years, turkiye would not allow them in.
so basically, as long as the us wants to be in nato, it will be in nato. better to scrap it and start again. i propose the name na2.
I propose the name that @DaddleDew@lemmy.world proposed
Now Excluding America Treaty Organization (NEATO)
A new NATO with blackjack and hookers
Keep the name and call it NATO: Nations Against Trump Organization
i propose the name na2.
Clever, but I don’t see why it should be limited to North Atlantic countries.
If for instance Australia and South Korea want to join, that should be an option.Eurovision 2
I think we should go with GDI, Global Defence Initiative
Meanwhile US creates the GWI
You mean the Brotherhood of Nod
because it’s full of yes men?
What if China wants to join? Or Russia? What would be the policy?
The standard for NATO has always been to only accept democracies.
I see no reason why we would change that requirement for a new alliance.
I’d even go so far as to make respect of human rights a demand too like we have in EU, so we for instance exclude countries with death penalty.There needs to be common values that we want to protect, with NATO it was democracy, based on our experience with USA, we need to extend that to include respect for international law and human rights as well as protecting democracy.
LOL, how silly.
Russia and China are democracies - they have systems of voting, candidates, politicians fall in and out of favor with the public, etc. In fact, China is innovating on how to get MORE participatory systems into their Republic that aren’t limited to gerrymandered popularity tests.
But human rights? You’re joking, right? Guantanamo Bay. Extraordinary rendition. Abu Ghraib. Vietnam. Cambodia. Laos. Guam. School of the Americas. Iran-Contra. Overthrowing the Shah. Operation Paperclip. Operation Gladio. CIA black sites. Drone striking weddings. Drone striking funerals for people who died at those weddings. Zero Units. Napalm. Agent Orange. Land mines. Somalia. Libya. Iraq. Afghanistan. Kidnapping a head of state. Double tapping fishermen. Spying on all communications of their own citizens. The Five Eyes spying on each other’s citizens and trading the intel back to each other.
You think respect for human rights is required for NATO membership? Do you know what NATO has even done?
Russia and China are democracies
No they are not, they are authoritarian regimes that oppress any political competition through censorship, imprisonment and even death. Just like we’ve seen with Navalny and Jack Ma. Try to look up tiananmen square in China. Or just ask a Chinese AI about it, it won’t tell you anything.
You are a complete idiot, and I really mean literal idiot for calling those 2 countries democracies, there are clearly standards for what constitute a democracy, and Russia and China are not in any way within those standards. Free press and freedom of expression without threat of persecution by the government is a requirement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index
Democracy is not just about being allowed to vote for the dear leader, there has to be ability to participate in the whole political process without being oppressed.But human rights? You’re joking, right? Guantanamo Bay.
Now you are just being stupid again, I said it shout be EXTENDED to human rights if we make a NATO replacement without USA, which we obviously can’t do now while USA is a member, because USA nolonger even pretend to observe human rights.
Don’t bother responding. I have blocked you, your points are moronic, and I don’t want to ever read anything from you again.
Get off the meth for christ sake.So then America isn’t a democracy because it persecuted Assange, Snowden, Manning, and many many others over its long history, right?
Because it outlawed the communist party and persecuted every single person in every industry that was associated with the communists, black listing them and ending entire careers let alone lives, right?
Oh wait, you blocked me. Nevermind
The standard for NATO has always been to only accept democracies
As defined by whom exactly? Chinese citizens will tell you that they’re in a democracy and very satisfied with it, much more so than Spaniards for example (my homeland)
I’d even go so far as to make respect of human rights a demand too like we have in EU
EU is literally funding the genocide of Palestinians with 0 economic or political sanctions to Israel coming from governments. By that logic, all of EU deserves out of NATO immediately. NATO also triggered the Libyan civil war through bombing, bombed Yugoslavia, and many NATO countries directly participated in the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.
the policy shoud be “this is union of democratic countries”
And who decides which countries are democratic and which are not?
we have the whole field of expertise for that, we call it the political science. and no one with more than 2 brain cells thinks china or russia are democratic countries.
So having 2 braincells should be a policy then!
that would be necessary, not sufficient condition.
I doubt political scientists in China agree with, say, German political scientists’ definition of democracy. What supranational organization will decide which country’s political scientists are correct?
I could perfectly well argue that France isn’t Democratic. The majority of the population voted for a leftist coalition that is being blocked by the president of the republic from being elected, and Macron has already skipped the democratic will of the people by declaring emergency measures to pass antidemocratic legislation such as the increase of retirement age.
In Greece, when a leftist government (Syriza) was elected around 2010 after the huge economic crisis around a platform of reviewing the state debt and democratically decided on referendum to do so, the European Central Bank threatened with dropping its obligations towards Greece and forced neoliberal austerity policy.
In Berlin, the people democratically voted through direct referendum for a cap to rent prices, and shortly after the highest court of Germany declared it illegal and rent prices were uncapped again (despite economic studies of the policy results in its limited lifespan prove it was effective in lowering rent pricing).
In Spain (my homeland), when a leftist party (Podemos) was getting ranked 3rd in the country by polls and was on trend to overtake the socialdemocrats (PSOE), an illegal police operation directed from the ministry of internal affairs fabricated false evidence of funding of said leftist party from Venezuela and Iran and leaked these falsified police reports to all media before the elections, which destroyed the popularity of the party.
I gotta say, being a leftist in Europe, it doesn’t feel democratic at all that all the choice we have is to vote once every four years the colour of the party that will impose neoliberal austerity policy and raise military expenditure (all countries in the EU do this)
No serious political scientist claims democracy is a matter of ideology or “who feels represented.” There is broad cross-national agreement on procedural criteria: competitive elections, universal suffrage, freedom of association and expression, independent courts, civilian control of the military, and peaceful transfer of power. Chinese or Russian academics may reject these standards, but that doesn’t make them arbitrary—just inconvenient for regimes that fail to meet them. There’s no need for a supranational authority to decide this any more than there is one for physics; standards emerge from scholarly consensus and empirical comparison.
Second, pointing out abuses and contradictions inside democracies doesn’t negate their democratic character. What you describe in France, Greece, Germany, and Spain are are events happening within constitutional systems, not the absence of those systems. Courts overturn referenda because constitutions limit majority rule; executives misuse emergency powers; police and media manipulate narratives. That is democracy functioning badly, not democracy not existing.
The decisive distinction is whether these actions can be challenged, exposed, reversed, and punished. In Europe, governments lose elections, courts rule against executives, journalists investigate police misconduct, and opposition parties—leftist ones included—can recover and return. In Russia, journalists, opposition politicians, and anti‑corruption activists don’t lose court cases; they lose their freedom, their lives, or very famously, fall out of windows.
That is the difference between democracy and dictatorship, comrade.
Removed by mod
In Romania, they declared a candidate illegal.
Putin has higher approval ratings than any western leader. Chinese people are happier with their level of democracy than any country in the west.
Our countries are extremely corrupt with elections fully determined by Zionism, CIA and oligarchy, with parliaments/congress providing 0 useful bills of any kind, including avoiding popularly requested freedoms.
An empirical definition of democracy, as best fit, is nations with performative elections that result in a winner that is in full agreement with US foreign policy.
The cognitive dissonance of popular discontent within US’s NATO colonies is that because the US is a directly stated enemy intent on destroying them, they would be far more advantaged to be in an alliance with Russia and China, and to contain the US, instead of finding the most extreme way of subjugating themselves harder to the US.
doesn’t necessarily need to be short for North Atlantic, could be Not America’s no. 2
How about nay2? Thst way, when it comes to the unavoidable acoustical misunderstandings, it’s also the answer to what’s talked about.
nato does not have any democratic principles in its rules because was assumed that everyone in it wants the same thing, so everything needs to be done with full agreement.
Consensus decision-making is a group decision-making process in which participants work together to develop proposals for actions that achieve a broad acceptance. Consensus is reached when everyone in the group assents to a decision (or almost everyone; see stand aside) even if some do not fully agree to or support all aspects of it. It differs from simple unanimity, which requires all participants to support a decision. Consensus decision-making in a democracy is consensus democracy.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making
Consensus is far more democratic than majority rule, which is the norm in most Western democracies.
only if all actors are working in good faith.
2na2to
They way I see it, USA can’t be kicked out but it can leave.
That said I don’t see a problem in making a new NATO, without the US and (hopefully) without veto rights
Part of the problem of creating a non-American NATO is that the USA provides a ton of capabilities and logistics that other countries can’t possibly afford.
It is the reason why there has been a push to create an EU military instead.
Yes but the US is an enemy now
that other countries can’t possibly afford.
That other countries neglected over the years, you mean? Weird approach to article 3.
EU countries did underinvest, but the US is able to invest in multiple weapon platforms and logistics capabilities that wealthy but small countries can’t possibly afford on their own.
The Libyan War was a good example. The EU nations that wanted to intervene in the war needed the US to provide ATC duties and provide supplies after the countries’ missile reserves ran out.
Neglected or were coerced to not cover? Every time Europe has wanted to be on par with the US, the US had undermined the idea. Being the guy with the bigger stick has always been the ideal for the US. And that includes a less powerful Europe.
Neglected or were coerced to not cover?
Corrupt politicians don’t need coercion, but yeah.
They want it to survive and outlast Trump. Kicking out the US is Putin’s wet dream.
Russia can’t even handle Ukraine. What are they going to do against the rest of NATO, even without the US?
They aren’t going to invade the UK, but they want them out of the EU. You sabotage your enemy as much as possible, even if you’re not going to war immediately. Sun Tzu stuff, when your enemy is larger than you, divide them. Take down the strongest military alliance (or cut in half if you want) in history thats been in place for 70 years, yeah that’s a huge massive jizz in your pants accomplisment. Your entire framing is frankly wrong,
When the US briefly revoked command and control (think, satellite connections, real time intelligence, missile warning etc) Ukraine suffered heavy casualties quickly. Were thr US to walk away, neither Ukraine or NATO has those same capabilities. NATO minus US vs Russia, in the immediate future would be incredibly bloody and possibly fall in Russia’s favour.
Imagine you are doing a tarzan vine jump, and I cut your vine while you are jumping then say “See, you wouldn’t be able to do it without my vines!!!”. Yeah man, timing matters.
Russia doesn’t have those capabilities either. They duck tape consumer grade GPS units for cars into their fighter jets built in the 70s. The war in the Ukraine has exhausted aka destroyed a huge amount of Russian equipment. Tanks, jets, ships, and fucking subs. They are using fucking donkeys for Christ sake to supply the front line with ammo.
NATO minus the USA vs Russia would be tough but if one or two NATO countries fight like Ukraine has then Russia is toast. And if NATO sticks together that is.
Two things can be simultaneously true:
-
Russia has suffered substantial loss of materiel etc.
-
Russia still has effective command and control systems. Whereas the EU depends heavily on America for advanced targeting (think the Ukranian long range missile strikes on refineries in recent months.)
Here’s a fairly accessible article on some of the difficulties/timelines for a post American NATO:
(Notable quote from someone wiser than myself “We’re almost completely dependent on U.S. intelligence for satellite and everything that goes with it”)
-
Break it up using his puppet in the white house.
Well, Russia is sort of holding back. They have tactical nukes, not sure how many of those nato has without the US. And going ballistic doesn’t end well for anyone. But Russia need the land of major nato members. They will pick on non-nato countries mostly, and more often they will do it by cutting off trade routes and such. Maybe they use thier now seasoned military to pick off some minor nato members, just to distract Nato from everything else. With the US pulling back from the international stage, Russia and Chine can divvy up a lot of the world.
Not using nukes isn’t holding back its not inviting armageddon.
The tactical ones are a grey area. They can be small enough not to end the world. They can also have far less long term effects than the larger and older ones. In short, you could nuke a military base as apposed to a city. They can be delivered as an artilery shell. So if Russia used one. I doubt the world would immediately luanch thier strategic arsenal in response.
That’s kind of just Europe plus Canada. But the whole point is nukes. Without the US we don’t really have that (the UK has a few but the US has the keys iirc, and France has a token amount), so Europe needs to get those weapons programs going again.
The UK and France have more than 500 nukes.
The US doesn’t “have the keys” to UK nukes (ie the UK doesn’t keep US approval to fire them), but they are maintained and built by the US (I’m sure if they had to, they could figure it out themselves).
And let’s be real, you don’t need thousands of nukes when a handful (when carefully stored and separated like the UK does in submarines for their active ones) could destroy so much of the planet.
Will a country with 1000 nukes invade a country that has “only” 5?
To my understanding no, not unless they break the rules. (Trump breaking rules is as common as oxygen so who knows)
It’s one of those symbolic initiatives. There may be an official mechanism but right now, it would be a disaster without NATO. Right now, the US has most of the Command and Control logistics (think constant satellite connection, missiled detection systems etc.) That stuff is super expensive and the assumption was that America was an ally, so not a lot of duplication was built in.
A NATO without the US dooms Ukraine and presumably, whatever hits of Eastern Europe Putin feels like holding.
It’s shitty, frustrating and awful but it’s also the grim, current reality. We didn’t realize our allies would become two bit thugs.
Apparently neither did the US founding fathers… checks and balances my ass.
Just leave NATO and have a secret one without telling us at all.
All we would see is things like “the leaders of such and such had a meeting Wednesday at whatever place”
Lol you couldn’t keep anything that big a secret from the US.
With blackjacks and …!
That wouldn’t solve the immediate problem, which is adversarial officers being infiltrated at all levels of our defense structures. NATO is much more than government meetings, it has permanent structures that serve as the foundation of European security. If our leaders were not complete idiots there would be a second foundation built around the EU, but the Common Security and Defence Policy is nowhere near ready to replace NATO yet.
You-know-who invited us to secret wink-wink at the you-know-what.
