300
this post was submitted on 07 Jan 2026
300 points (100.0% liked)
World News
51966 readers
3905 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
- Blogsites are treated in the same manner as social media sites. Medium, Blogger, Substack, etc. are not valid news links regardless of who is posting them. Yes, legitimate news sites use Blogging platforms, they also use Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube and we don't allow those links either.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
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.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
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/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Hopefully NATO is one of them and we can just rip the bandaid off now.
Edit: Huh, downvotes. Does Lemmy think NATO is in great shape and will definitely hold for the foreseeable future?
As it is, it's in the way of other, more credible alliances forming, because nobody wants to weaken NATO. But, the moment the US does something in Greenland, all that delay will be for naught.
Please note: he can't leave NATO by decree, the keys got taken to the Congress during Biden's time. It's among the few treaties a US president currently cannot leave.
Yeah just put it on the pile of other stuff he's not legally allowed to do but he's doing anyway
hope in one hand and take a shit in the other kinda dealio
takes a shit on your hands
........what? Is that not what you wanted?
TIL! Oh well.
He hasn't exactly let that stop him before, especially since MAGA controls Congress.
To my understanding, there are multiple republican congress critters against leaving NATO - so, despite nominal MAGA control, no majority.
Did they actually vote that way? I wouldn't trust any of them on their word.
The USA may be weak in their dedication to alliances and giving their now untrustworthy word to provide mutual defence, but we in Europe are not.
When a NATO nation is attacked and calls for aid, we will answer, as we have in the past when such threats and tyranny arose.
That is the promise of civilisation. That's what separates us from the barbarians that would seek to destroy or enslave us all to build more power for themselves.
Yeah. I would trust NATO without America a lot more. That's a kind of credible alternative organisation of it's own, which their membership precludes.
Europe failed to fight the monster in their backyard, hence why we are where we are today.
Sort of? Turkey actually tested this once. Since it was Turkey and Greece it all kind of just got smoothed over. If it was the US the entire thing becomes a farce, and the treaty is just a piece of paper.
Are you just thinking about all the US officers involved in running it? It's not like the US actually, officially calls the shots.
If NATO is just the US, why wasn't it in Iraq? Because the US didn't want help? I was there, that was not the message they were putting out.
Oh, so there is more than the US's say-so at play.
It's almost like it's a voluntary agreement to coordinate and defend each other. One which doesn't intrinsically depend on the US in any way, but just happens to have the US as by far the largest member.
Oh, okay. AWS is actually a good analogy. It's a huge pillar of the existing infrastructure, and if it was gone it would be a pretty huge, unprecedented crisis. The internet would still come back, though. (Since I'm on all alt platforms already, I actually didn't notice it was down until I saw it on the news!)
Similarly, NATO would be in a bind, but I have every reason to think the considerable power and common interests of the remaining parties would see it through. One big question I've seen mentioned is the American officers that staff parts of it. Either they could keep working there even if the US is not a member, which is possible, or there would be just be a period of interruption to it's coordination functions while the ranks are refilled. Since Britain and France are nuclear powers, just article 5 is a strong protection already, though.
How much of NATO is actually needed in the short term? The last bit there was kind of going in that direction. Just being a nuclear power that would credibly respond to actions against any member seems like it would provide safety for a few years.
Over the longer term, a coordinated structure to respond to novel threats starts to matter.
Russia is having trouble fighting just Ukraine + Western weapons. Europe would not have trouble winning (at whatever cost) if it came to it in the near term, NATO or no.
I feel like it should go without saying that the US would not be supporting NATO, if NATO was fighting the US. So, zero days to build back up without them, and they probably blow things up on their way out.
Why? Unless you think none of the nuclear powers are willing. France in particular does not have a reputation for passivity.
Hey, I didn't say a shrug. It's also a bad option, just in a world with no really great ones left.
That's also how it works for the US, though. MAD has still held for decades, because nobody really wants whatever thing bad enough to risk escalation.
Maybe you don't buy MAD, but actual (rather than potential, never-to-pass) use was never mentioned. That just feels like straight up putting words in my mouth, please take it back.
Which other powers are you worried about? Russia is busy and struggling, China is far enough away from Europe it's hard to picture them directly fighting each other. My own country uniquely has exposure to both China and the North Atlantic, but China won't invade here anytime soon, while the US is a very real threat.
If that was conveyed, it wasn't meant. Again, there's no really good options in a world where the US is sliding into fascism, and no option where NATO lasts past the medium term, anyway. It's just a question of what order things break in.
Only in a hypothetical scenario that's supposed to never happen, where the enemy is the one doing the first strike. (There's actually some interesting math here, which unusually depends a bit on human nature to work)
NATO is itself engaged in MAD. If it's the same as a strategy as actually nuking something, shouldn't you be against NATO anyway?