• SuspciousCarrot78@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 小时前

    Your article is pay walled, so we cannot respond to what was written.

    Having said that… I’m reasonably sure Europe isn’t hand wringing over US staying in NATO.

    I’d imagine you’d be hard pressed to find popular support for America in Europe…anywhere.

    • chonomaiwokurae@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 小时前

      Here you go: "The suez crisis, the Vietnam war, the invasion of Iraq: non-European wars have a way of tearing at the fabric of nato. Now America’s air campaign (alongside Israel) against Iran may rip the alliance apart. Donald Trump has grown increasingly hostile towards European allies, furious at their refusal to help America re-open the Strait of Hormuz. Worse, several European countries have made American operations in the Middle East more difficult.

      “Cowards, and we will remember!” blasted Mr Trump in one social-media post on March 20th. In recent interviews he said he was “absolutely” considering leaving the alliance, although he did not repeat the threat in a televised address about the Iran war on April 1st. The president’s imprecations have been echoed by Marco Rubio, his secretary of state, once a staunch defender of the transatlantic alliance. Calling nato “a one-way street”, Mr Rubio declared: “There is no doubt, unfortunately, after this conflict is concluded we are going to have to re-examine that relationship.”

      Mr Rubio’s shift has helped create a funereal mood in European capitals. As a senator, he co-sponsored a bipartisan law in 2023 to prevent the unilateral withdrawal that Mr Trump is now contemplating. “The President shall not suspend, terminate, denounce, or withdraw the United States from the North Atlantic Treaty […] except by and with the advice and consent of the Senate” by a two-thirds majority, declares the act. Now as one of the most important figures in the Trump administration, Mr Rubio appears to be recanting. He has often acted as the last grown-up in Mr Trump’s court, stepping in to steady transatlantic relations and prevent the full abandonment of Ukraine. The last constraint may now be gone.

      “This is the worst moment that nato has faced,” says Ivo Daalder, a former American ambassador to nato. “Rather than trying to convince Donald Trump not to leave, allies have to focus…on strengthening their military capacity.” He said European refusal to facilitate the war had undermined pro-nato Americans, who argue that Europe offers America a launch-pad to project power globally.

      Spain’s Socialist prime minister, Pedro Sánchez, has been the most confrontational, barely meeting the old 2% of gdp target for defence spending, but rejecting the new one for 3.5% (plus 1.5% on defence-related infrastructure). Spain has closed its bases and airspace to American forces attacking Iran. France has been more measured. Its fighter jets have helped the United Arab Emirates shoot down drones, and it has sent an aircraft carrier to help defend Cyprus. Mr Trump has nevertheless lashed out at France’s “very unhelpful” refusal to let some American military aircraft fly over its territory.

      Britain, having initially refused to let American forces use its bases, now permits it, but only to protect neighbouring countries from Iran’s retaliation. “This is not our war,” Sir Keir Starmer, the British prime minister, has repeatedly insisted. Mr Trump has retorted that Sir Keir is “no Winston Churchill”. Italy, another defence-spending laggard, reportedly stopped some American planes from using a base in Sicily. For Kurt Volker, another former American ambassador to nato, European actions have been “foolish”, though understandable: “They are responding emotionally against Donald Trump, not rationally, in accordance with their interest.”

      Mr Trump has toyed since his first term with the idea of withdrawing from nato. Last year, however, he cast himself as the alliance’s saviour by convincing allies to spend at least 5% of gdp on defence and related infrastructure. Relations later soured again as Mr Trump wooed Russia. He outraged allies by reviving his campaign to seize Greenland, a self-governing territory of Denmark. The war in Iran is bringing resentment to a boil. American officials have suggested they may withhold weapons intended for Ukraine, partly out of frustration at the lack of progress in peace talks with Russia, and partly because America’s own stocks are running low.

      Mr Volker still hopes Congress will stop Mr Trump from abandoning nato. “It’s a red line for many Republicans—perhaps the only one,” he argues. But the 2023 law constraining Mr Trump from leaving nato may be ignored or deemed unconstitutional. In any case, Mr Trump need not formally leave the alliance to cripple it: he could withdraw American forces from Europe, or recall its military commander, an American general. “I have spent the past five years telling people not to worry about Trump and nato,” says one European diplomat in Washington, dc. “Now I am genuinely quite worried about Trump and nato.”

      Mark Rutte, the nato secretary-general, who has raised eyebrows by on one occasion calling Mr Trump “daddy” and by endorsing his assault on Iran, is due to visit Washington on April 8th to try to soothe relations. Britain convened a video conference of about 40 countries on April 2nd—without America—to discuss ways of increasing political and economic pressure on Iran to re-open the Strait of Hormuz.

      The international waterway carries about a quarter of global seaborne oil, not to mention similar shares of liquified natural gas and fertiliser. Since the start of the campaign on February 28th Iran has prevented all but a handful of ships—usually ones carrying its oil or from countries deemed friendly, such as India—from transiting daily in and out of the Persian Gulf. A French-owned container ship made the passage on March 28th. Iran is now talking about imposing a toll on ships seeking to use the strait.

      “Iran is trying to hold the global economy hostage,” said Yvette Cooper, Britain’s foreign secretary, in a statement. Participants in the British teleconference, she added, called for “the immediate and unconditional reopening of the strait”. Those at a similar gathering on March 19th had declared themselves willing to contribute to “appropriate efforts to ensure safe passage through the strait”. Military chiefs are expected to discuss options for escorting ships at a meeting next week.

      In his address on April 1st Mr Trump suggested he could end the war within weeks even if the strait remained closed. Iran had been “completely decimated”, he said. Countries that depended on the strait “must grab it and cherish it”, he added: “the hard part is done, so it should be easy.” Yet no American warship has yet run the gauntlet.

      European countries say no escort mission is feasible until fighting has died down, and diplomats say there are disagreements over the terms of any such mission. Re-opening the strait by force would be “unrealistic”, insisted Emmanuel Macron, the French president, during a visit to South Korea. “First, there must be a ceasefire and a resumption of negotiations.” In that framework, he said, “reassurance missions may be possible.” Diplomats say France wants to lead the mission, exclude America and bring in India and perhaps China. Britain thinks Iran is unlikely to give up threatening ships; to protect allied forces, it thinks America should spearhead the mission. Mr Trump, for his part, says Europeans should “take the lead”, though America “will be helpful”.

      One gloomy Finnish official thinks all this will make little difference. The situation may have gone “beyond the point” where European action could soften Mr Trump’s contempt for nato. The alliance faces grim times ahead of its annual summit in Ankara in July. Its best option, he says, would be to redouble efforts to build the European pillar of nato. Perhaps that would convince Mr Trump that allies are willing to take up more of the burden. More probably, it would at least start to prepare them for the daunting task of taking over nato if Mr Trump abandons it."

  • GardenGeek@europe.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    93
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    20 小时前

    What exactly is the point of hoping for the US to stay when their contribution currently seems to boil down to blackmailing and threats of abandonment should shit really hit the fan? This sounds more like an abusive relationship than a defence treaty…

    • manxu@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      18 小时前

      The hope is that this is just a temporary glitch and America will revert to what it has been for 250 years, for better or worse.

      The Biden Administration, for instance, was viewed very favorably by NATO partners, and that was just two years ago.

        • Lucius_Sweet@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 小时前

          The USA has been the largest economy in the world since 1870-1890. By 1913 they were more than twice the size of their nearest global rival. The USA has been a world power for a long time, they just used to be a bit more isolationist, they should go back to doing that.

      • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        18
        ·
        16 小时前

        The Biden Administration, for instance, was viewed very favorably

        Careful. A positive comment about the Biden administration goes against the narrative.

    • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      19 小时前

      Because, for decades prior, the US was the military of NATO. The US pumped massive percentages of its GDP into maintaining a standing military while most of NATO focused more on social programs with comparatively minimal military spending.

      And threats like russia wouldn’t attack out of fear of having to fight said militarized nation. Whereas now there is a very clear window where the nations that might stand up against them are rebuilding. “Fortunately” russia is stretched pretty far by a failed invasion of Ukraine but… go read the wikipedia article on how their previous invasions of Ukraine went.


      Welp. The Internet as a whole is real broken. But Lemmy is very rapidly taking the cake for THE place where you can never discuss anything and the only responses are people who are incapable of having a conversation and are just angry that you didn’t say what they wanted to hear.

      Dead Internet Theory looking increasingly not that bad. Or, better yet, prioritizing different social media where people respond to each other rather than the voices in their own heads. Somehow… we managed to actually leap frog reddit on the way down?

      • spitfire@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        11 小时前

        Do you remember why NATO was founded, and why the biggest European country was mostly demilitarised, and forced to have its army limited?

      • ms.lane@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        9 小时前

        The Internet as a whole is real broken. But Lemmy is very rapidly taking the cake for THE place where you can never discuss anything and the only responses are people who are incapable of having a conversation and are just angry that you didn’t say what they wanted to hear.

        Did you expect a bunch of responses just agreeing with you? Allow me to placate that ego.

        wow, so true!

        I agree with your actual post, but the bitching that you’re not just getting blind praise is wild.

      • GardenGeek@europe.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        29
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        20 小时前

        You’re right of course.

        But two things I’d like to point out:

        1. Yes, the US WAS the military of the treaty. WAS being the important part here as the trust that made this arragement possible is heavily eroded today due to the lunatic in charge.

        2. You’re first paragraph is onesided and resembles the talking points of the Trump admin. The reality is more complex: The Us would have spend that money anyways as it aimed for global military domination during and after the cold war. The NATO treaty allowd to convert this alread spend money not only in hard military but also in soft power: The US gained massive multi-level influence in the member states due to the military depency and also bought their international voices (for example inside the UN) with it. It was a win-win situation with kooperative cost advantages for both sides. Not a one sided deal to the disadvantage of the US as Americans seem to be made believe by Trump and his oligarchy.

        • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          19 小时前

          Not a one sided deal to the disadvantage of the US as Americans seem to be made believe by Trump and his oligarchy.

          Where did I ever say this was a one sided deal?

            • silver@das-eck.haus
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              19 小时前

              I disagree. Simply saying that fact doesn’t imply it’s a bad thing, even though that is something we often hear from those who are anti NATO. I would expect anyone here to understand that the US benefited heavily from the arrangement, and is now losing soft power in a huge way

              • Nakedmole@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                18 小时前

                Its one of Trumps main anti NATO talking points, its not particularly surprising people will recognize it as that.

                • silver@das-eck.haus
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  16 小时前

                  Totally agree, I just think it’s unlikely that anyone in this forum would be parroting a Trump talking point for the sake of it.

          • GardenGeek@europe.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            19 小时前

            You didn’t say that.

            I got triggered since you only linked US military spending to european social security programs while leaving out other aspects, a reasoning which I only know from US conservatives including Trump.

            If I mistook you I’m sorry.

            • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              19 小时前

              Pointing out that the US spends massive amounts of money on military spending is just a fact. https://www.nato.int/content/dam/nato/webready/documents/finance/def-exp-2025-en.pdf is the official NATO write up of this from last year and the only countries that outspend the US (as a percentage of their GDP) tend to be the countries that are where The War will kick off Poland) or… countries with other things going on

              And keep in mind that is in terms of GDP percentages and how massive the US’s economy was for most of that period.

              The “conservative” talking point is not: “The US spends money on war while the EU spends money on healthcare and actually giving a shit about its population”. It is “The US spends money on war so you should do whatever we want”. Its also worth understanding that The EU did not spend that money anywhere near that altruistically but it doesn’t change the situation that the EU/NATO finds itself in.

              Because when that military is increasingly likely to be the aggressor? You need to rapidly start making guns and revisiting what is required of your populace. People have exploded over Germany recently more or less codifying a standing policy but… there is a reason politicians are looking at their conscription laws.

              Look. We all live in a content bubble. But if you actually want to understand the world, rather than just get angry in ways that are convenient to influencers and politicians, actually look at statistics and respond to facts. Rather than getting pissy and screaming “fake news” because you don’t’ like what you saw.

              Because, to be clear, I REALLY don’t fucking like how broken the US is because of how much it spends on the military.

      • mnastroguy@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        20 小时前

        If you think we ‘happened’ to keep a large standing army just because we were defending Europe.

        The plain fact is we didn’t even try and reap the peace dividends following the Cold War. We doubled down and found an excuse to pad the pockets of the MIC.

        If we’d shrunk down instead of maintaining all this obsolete gear, it’d be easier to be proactive to changes in warfare like drones. We wouldn’t maintain fleets of fourth gen fighters and build out our fifth gen fleets.

        You maintain military production capacity by having a strong civil industrial capability.

        As we learned in WW2, it doesn’t take much to convert from making cars to making tanks.

        Bonus side effect: prevents us from getting embroiled in nation building or getting after commercial wet dreams for regime change when it takes 2-3 years to build up a force.

        • 8oow3291d@feddit.dk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          16 小时前

          The plain fact is we didn’t even try and reap the peace dividends following the Cold War.

          The US did reap a peace dividend. Loads of storied US military supply companies had to close, because there were no longer infinite money for defense.

        • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          19 小时前

          If you think we ‘happened’ to keep a large standing army just because we were defending Europe.

          Where did I ever say that?

          • mnastroguy@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            19 小时前

            Because, for decades prior, the US was the military of NATO. The US pumped massive percentages of its GDP into maintaining a standing military while most of NATO focused more on social programs with comparatively minimal military spending.

            Here ya go buddy. Here’s where you said it.

            • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              19 小时前

              Yes… I said that the US was the military might of NATO. I did not say that was the only reason we have a truly massive military.

              If all you are able to do is build tangential strawmen then… do yourself a favor and just go post on chatgpt.

      • masterspace@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        19 小时前

        Let’s remember that the US has been, by far, the richest country in the world since the world wars, largely because it stayed out of them til the ends, and issued massive loans to European countries that they continued to profit off of for decades and decades.

        You talk about GDP percentage, as if every country had a similar GDP per capita, and could thus afford to spend similarly. The reality is that the US had more then enough money to both fund its military and fund its social programs, but it chose to instead fund the military and the already wealthy.

        • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          19 小时前

          You talk about GDP percentage, as if every country had a similar GDP per capita, and could this afford to spend similarly

          Where did I ever say this?

          The reality is that the US had more then enough money to both fund its military and fund its social programs, but it chose to instead fund the military and the already wealthy.

          Which changes absolutely nothing from the perspective of NATO

          • masterspace@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            19 小时前

            Where did I say this?

            👀

            The US pumped massive percentages of its GDP into

            Which changes absolutely nothing from the perspective of NATO

            Lmao yes it does. It only doesn’t if you declare “I’m ignoring this information”, and stick your head in the sand.

            That’s not reasoning, that’s weaponized incompetence.

  • hellequin67@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    ·
    edit-2
    19 小时前

    US also needs to remember that should it choose to leave it will also need to exit all it’s European bases currently occupied under the pretext of NATO.

    Good luck trying to expand your global empire of regime change without European bases and or airspace.

    • Random_Character_A@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      16 小时前

      Maybe they will stay happy in their corner of the world torturing Cuba, Venezuela and fucking with Canada with a daily threat.

  • Jaysyn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 小时前

    Trump can’t remove us from NATO w/o the normal Congressional process.

    • JohnEdwa@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      7 小时前

      It’s good to know that Trump won’t do something if he needs the permission of Congress for it first. I’m sure he follows those rules very well, and would never break them.

      Speaking of that, has anyone seen the official declaration of war and authorization of military action against Iran anywhere? The Congress seems to have misplaced it somewhere. Must have gotten lost in the mail.

        • kunaltyagi@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 小时前

          Even if there were 535 body bags from the “war”, you’d be hard pressed to find a spine in the US govt.

          They hate kings but loooove strong presidents and a cult of personality

      • Casterial@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        13 小时前

        We’re a Republic, we vote in representatives. It’s their duty to represent, but currently they aren’t and need to be voted out.

        • Vikthor@piefed.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          12 小时前

          “Republic, if you can keep it.” Franklin didn’t mean the congressmen, he meant you, the people.

    • axh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      18 小时前

      Yup. I’m from Poland and I am more worried that the US would pull us into WW3 than I am worried about Russia.