Oh, sure, most EU countries allow US bases to be used but we can al be grateful NATO won’t join the war…
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.
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…
We had that in 2001. Didn’t go so well…
Trump is already doing that, but through a different route. They don’t need to bomb there. They’re using other means.
Thank you Rutte.
Dear Donald, please now apply the same trade war to all NATO nations as you have to Spain. I dare ya’.It’s like they don’t even want to bring around armageddon!
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.
I think they were referring to the speech given to the US troops.
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.
Well duh, it’s a defensive alliance.
Tell that to the people of yugoslavia in 1999
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.
I know Serbians in the celebrity world of the country. They hate NATO for stepping in. We used to get into arguments about it.
A nation committing a genocide does tend to be aggravated by other nations interfering.
NATO has intervened in situations where they had a UN mandate.
Ah, so it’s not a defensive alliance. Thanks for confirming.
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.
Article 5 does not mandate every nation to participate if any one nation is attached. It is voluntary.
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.
That’s the opposite of article 5
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.
defence of peace
Ah, like the US.
Yes, under this ‘definition’ they could be intervening all over the world, including in Iran.
No under the NATO definition of peace. Don’t be moving the goal posts now.
NATO definition of peace.
Don’t be moving the goal posts now.
lol.
They hadn’t in Serbia. Not every illegal attacking war is bad. Reality is messy.
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.
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.
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.
BREAKING: German engineer invents nanofilmant capable of precisely splitting hair
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.
They were defending those people, no?
They were also defending themselves from a building refugee crisis.
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?
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.
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.
It was NATO itself, operating under a UN mandate.
NATO also had a mission in Iraq.
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.
What UN mandate? They explicitly didn’t have one, because China and Russia would block it.
NATO was enforcing S/RES/1199, which demanded the end of action which affected civilians and end military action.
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
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.
You are wrong. NATO was under UN mandate.
No, it was not.
But the UN didn’t mandate the intervention, right?
Pretty hard to get the UN to mandate anything substantial if there’s almost always a veto power protecting its pawns…
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.
So, when Israel…
You are clearly right. It was an illegal attack.
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.
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?
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.
I mean, this would be plenty of justification for bombing texas
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.
Or Bosnia in 95
Nato intervened when Serbian forces committed genocide against the Bosnians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_Warthe July 1995 Srebrenica massacre later became iconic of the conflict. The massacre of over 8,000 Bosniak males by Serb forces
That’s when NATO decided to intervene.
I see your point but it was an offensive action. But in defence, I suppose.
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
Because it made Russia and China really nervous and that’s the propaganda they choose to spread through leftist circles.
*rightist
Well they both hate NATO now yeah.
That was four years before 1999.
Was Bosnia a member of NATO in 1995?
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.
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.
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.
perhaps spain doesnt have alot of israeli inteference or rich billionaire backers as the rest of the EU?
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.
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.
And?
Do the right thing. Eventually people will see 2 things: a country doing the right thing and another one engaged in abject hypocrisy and projection.
Better to be called a Nazi than to aid a Nazi.
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.
let them call you nazis. criticize them and let people see the truth and whether it is you or them that is the nazi.
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.
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.
I hope he doesn’t cave to pressure. His recent media imagery has him looking like a whipped pup
How dare NATO not invoke article 5 because Iran defended themselves!
That goes without saying, given that this is a completely illegal war of aggression. It is inconceivable that the EU is nevertheless acting as if these were allies. This war is a crime and serves to distract from further crimes: in the US, from the fact that the country is run by a fascist pedophile ring, and in Israel, from genocidal fascists whose agent, Epstein, made all this possible in the first place.
It is outrageous that the EU has not withdrawn from NATO and continues to supply weapons to the monsters in Israel.
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
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.
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.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.
I understand your point, but I disagree. I think NATO effectively no longer exists anyway - better to get rid of it sooner rather than later. The US recently threatened a war of aggression against one of its founding members. Now would be the right time to punish the geopolitical excesses of the criminal US-regime by creating a new alliance. The US is only a world power because of its military apparatus, which is financed on credit.
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.
Edit: There can no longer be any talk of a community of values with the US, as the regime there proves on a daily basis. It is more than unlikely that this will change, as the US population remains passive and will therefore soon be living in a dictatorship that will no longer pretend to be any different from oligarchies such as Russia. Therefore, I think, it makes little difference to orient oneself towards China instead.
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.
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.
The situation will not change on its own, not unless the US population rises up. The US president may change, if there are still free elections at all, which I think is highly doubtful given the establishment of an obvious secret police force in the form of ICE (the budget of this “agency” is equivalent to the military spending of a medium-sized country).
Even under a new, less aggressive administration, however, the fundamental problem will not change: The US is exclusively concerned with itself and does not shy away from using its power to its advantage – this was already the case under Obama, for example, who was eloquent and likeable, but also pursued the usual neo-capitalist policy of exploitation; even under him, it was difficult to say that the US was an ally of Europe. The US may be entitled to this as the most powerful nation in the world. However, it is a dying world power and will soon be overtaken by China. This is entirely foreseeable, and as Europeans we should almost be grateful to Trump, because his insane policies make it obvious how the US feels about its “partners.” - I think he accelerated the decline of the US by at least 10 years as it stands.
But please don’t misunderstand: based on my socialization alone, I would prefer the US to China, but I am not naive. When it comes to autocracy, the difference between the US, Russia, and China is becoming increasingly small. So it seems to me that Europe needs to sell itself as expensively as possible in order to save democracy here - and I think China would be willing to accept the continued existence of democracy in Europe in return for Europe turning away from the US.
The US, on the other hand, can only be expected to follow its own line and continue to undermine democracy, which is what billionaires are already doing in the EU as well, by the way: In Europe, the same social media giants that are enabling right-wing extremist parties to win elections in the US are also highly relevant. They are quite successful in doing so here as well: one example is the neo-Nazi AfD party in Germany, which is the equivalent of MAGA and is hugely popular because it is massively supported by the same billionaires who made Trump big in the US.
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.
Don’t hold me responsible for this, hold Trump responsible.
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?
well i got this pitchfork and this pitch and this lighter. you got a big piece of wood?
Aren’t we all learning globally our governments aren’t what they tell us they are?
Yes, absolutely. And that is precisely why we should see to it that all politicians who have benefited from this system are eliminated in democratic countries. For western democracies, this is basically synonymous with eliminating US lobbying and therefore includes most established politicians.
However, the democratic process for doing so is significantly hampered by the fact that social media in particular, but also legacy media is owned by billionaires. This ensures that only a minority in a given country is informed about the fact that only of a tiny fraction of the population, the richest 1%, in all Western democracies has benefited from this system while the population got exploited.
For Germany, for example, this means that under no circumstances one should vote for the AfD, because it is MAGA with the same goals and the same influential financiers - just a different brand.
its actually like .05-.01 richest people, the real billionaires.
The exploitation didn’t really start until the 1980’s. Before then, the population was benefiting as well.
No, I live in a functioning democracy, don’t normalize your electoral college nonsense on me.
Why would the EU withdraw from NATO? What has NATO done to piss them off?
It’s in my comment above, but I’m happy to repeat it for you: By threatening to invade Greenland, the US has threatened a founding member of NATO with a war of aggression.
NATO isn’t pissing itself off, just one of its member countries is pissing off all the others: the US.
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.
Expected
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.
The geopolitics level of the average american
Tell me you dont know how NATO works without telling me
NATO is nothing without the US. Let’s stop playing pretend games. We’ve entered WWIII
Merz is puppet of USA like this guy explained : https://lemmy.world/post/43726633/22438250
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.
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.
