this post was submitted on 03 Mar 2026
392 points (99.2% liked)

Europe

10562 readers
922 users here now

News and information from Europe 🇪🇺

(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)

Rules (2024-08-30)

  1. This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
  2. No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
  3. Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
  4. No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don't question the statehood of Israel.
  5. Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
  6. If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
  7. Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in other communities.
  8. Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
  9. No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
  10. Always provide context with posts: Don't post uncontextualized images or videos, and don't start discussions without giving some context first.

(This list may get expanded as necessary.)

Posts that link to the following sources will be removed

Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media (incl. Substack). Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com

(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)

Ban lengths, etc.

We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.

If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.

If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the primary mod account @EuroMod@feddit.org

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
federalreverse@feddit.org
poVoq@slrpnk.net
anzo@programming.dev
EuroMod@feddit.org
392
NATO will not join US–Israel campaign, Rutte says (tvpworld.com)
submitted 5 days ago by Pip@feddit.org to c/europe@feddit.org
149 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Aqarius@lemmy.world 1 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Your words:

Correct. The amounts used don't affect any of that.

Please refrain from moving goal posts.

Likewise. My claim isn't that they did nothing, but that what they do do doesn't look like an attempt at nation-destruction in any serious way. If they did, it would look like... well, what Israel is doing to them right now. So, yknow, doing it again.

The existence of these exigent circumstances never was up for debate: [..] I don’t see the same quality of reasons when Russia, because it can, invades Ukraine, or the US, because it can, decides to abduct Maduro.

And that's the thing. You see the quality then, but not later. That's the entire problem. You may see abducting Maduro as gross breach of sovereignty, but from what I've seen, quite a lot of EU heads of state are of the "well, dictator, illegitimate" opinion. You may see the Russian invasion as a direct waging of aggressive war, but ever since 2008, Russia more or less structures it's justifications as mirrors of the NATO one and going "What, you did it too!". Hell, right now, the US and Israel are engaged in a war that they can't even give an excuse for, and Carney, who just came back from Davos and the "remove the sign from the window" speech put the sign right back were it was. Your entire argument works perfectly as long as there's either an absolute judge of right, or a universal agreement of what right is, but if that were true that consensus would be law and there wouldn't be a need to break the law in the first place.

The main problem I have is that the UN, due to this veto architecture, is not capable of responding appropriately in situations where it, as the guardian and agent of the international law we once agreed upon, should defend this law specifically. There’s a backdoor for certain countries to hinder, stop, override the actions of the UN. But not for others, rendering these principles undemocratic and useless.

This is a fair complaint. But I point again to the problem it was trying to solve: to make a UN, you have to convince countries to give up some of their sovereignty to an external force. The League of Nations failed because A) a bunch of countries left the minute they didn't like a ruling, and B) a bunch didn't even join because they didn't wanna risk even getting to that point. The veto was a way to coax them into the community and get them to see the value in staying, instead of taking their toys and leaving. And if that sounds fucked to you, I'd point out that the issue right now is they decided even that was too restrictive.

so you accept might to make right sometimes, but other times, nations must be limited and not do as they please.

Most of the times, nations must be limited and not do as they please. But that mechanism isn’t here. A group of nations CAN do just as they please. For decades. And right now, they are as unhinged as ever, showing us that they no longer care what we think about that.

I... no. The "but" there doesn't do anything. The rest of the statement is unrelated to the first sentence, and the first sentence is what I'm pointing at. You say you care about the underlying mechanisms, but I don't see you making the connection here.

But what has that given us? In a world full of nukes, these countries wouldn’t fight directly with each other anyway. As, luckily, no-one is keen on fighting a war that can’t be won.

Ouf, this is a very dangerous assumption, particularly in a world where one of those powers has an unofficial-official policy of "we're taking you all with us" and two are run by geriatrics who clearly haven't made peace with their own mortality, one of which's warchief just said they're doing Armageddon to bring Jesus back. Not to mention, if taken for granted, it would mean that any country with a nuke is incentivized to immediately get troops involved into any dispute that may interest another power, just to mark the territory.

My point exactly.

But the nuance I was making is this part: "the veto itself is still the same". The fundamental problem that makes vetos broken, from a systems standpoint, is the law-breaking. It alone is not exactly fantastic, but is limited. It's the second part that turns it gamebreaking.

(X) Doubt. And big time! Look at the linked source. Most of the first 30ish? vetoes were about countries’ membership applications. This was pure tactical political power play to secure/gain majorities but nothing you actually would send your tank for against the other political bloc.

"Jain". It's an announcement, it could be a bluff, might not.

It depends on the circumstances.

The problem with this is the same as with the "mostly" above. Though I am reminded of an old Chris Rock routine (no, not that one) where he talks about OJ and the murder of his wife, and the repeating punchline is "Now I'm not saying he should've done it, but I understand". There's a big gap between "I understand" and "he should've done it".

Well. I don’t. Because I’m certain its not their determination holding them back but their possibilities. An Iran with the political and military possibilities of the US wouldn’t resort to funding terrorist groups in the counties neighbouring their enemy. Similarly, if Trump was “only” the president of a US with the strength and the possibilities of Iran, he couldn’t kidnap Maduro with impunity or bomb other countries just as he pleases. He also would have to resort to stirring up as much dirt with the means he has at hands. But his goals and ambitions would remain the same power-hungry, criminal and outright unhinged. Same with the Mullahs.

...I'm tempted to say "you're doing it again" again, but actually this poses an interesting question: say, for example, Iran had US military possibilities. Like, somewhere in 2024, they somehow get ahold of, IDK, a US carrier group or two, and then proceed to use it to bomb Israel to force them to get out of Gaza and retreat... let's say back into the 1967 borders. Would you approve?

[–] Quittenbrot@feddit.org 1 points 3 hours ago

Correct. The amounts used don’t affect any of that.

Again, your words:

SC vetos are not, as you present it, normal procedure for normal countries.

Frankly, graph and link show that this is not true.

My claim isn’t that they did nothing, but that what they do do doesn’t look like an attempt at nation-destruction in any serious way. If they did, it would look like… well, what Israel is doing to them right now.

You're mixing up aspiration and possibilities.

And that’s the thing. You see the quality then, but not later. That’s the entire problem. You may see abducting Maduro as gross breach of sovereignty, but from what I’ve seen, quite a lot of EU heads of state are of the “well, dictator, illegitimate” opinion. You may see the Russian invasion as a direct waging of aggressive war, but ever since 2008, Russia more or less structures it’s justifications as mirrors of the NATO one and going “What, you did it too!”.

NATO 1999: evident violations of basic human rights. Do you agree?

Maduro: IS a dictator and IS illegitimate, but still I say abducting him like that is wrong.

Russia: NATO or any of its member states didn't invade a neighbouring country in the biggest war since WW2 in order to annex and expand the own borders. I know too well that Russia and their sycophants love to play that "just mirroring NATO!!1" card as a shabby veil to hide their indigenous blatant imperialism under. But that "argument" has always just been a steaming pile of bs.

And if that sounds fucked to you, I’d point out that the issue right now is they decided even that was too restrictive.

It isn't restrictive as it didn't hinder them to do what they wanted to do all along. Rather, in a world of Putins and Trumps, no side is trying to be the "better" side by following the rules - more or less. Instead, they released all brakes and don't care anymore. Yes, I understood your explanation on why the UN was designed that way, but that cannot be the end of the story. Especially, after seeing what kind of problems come along with it. This thing needs to be further evolved instead of just saying: well, it is what it is. Otherwise, as can be seen right now, the whole thing will go down.

Ouf, this is a very dangerous assumption, particularly in a world where one of those powers has an unofficial-official policy of “we’re taking you all with us” and two are run by geriatrics who clearly haven’t made peace with their own mortality, one of which’s warchief just said they’re doing Armageddon to bring Jesus back. Not to mention, if taken for granted, it would mean that any country with a nuke is incentivized to immediately get troops involved into any dispute that may interest another power, just to mark the territory.

Well, it is a dangerous world we live in, merely hanging by a thread. No point hiding from that hard truth. The only thing keeping us kinda safe is that neither of these geriatrics has the power to completely single-handedly actually fire the nukes. There's other people in the lines of command from his button to the ship/silo carrying the warhead that the lunacy of only one mustn't necessarily mean the end of us all. But a UN, which especially is toothless against the veto peers, is of no use for the disputes between the nuclear elite.

The fundamental problem that makes vetos broken, from a systems standpoint, is the law-breaking.

Since we're eventually deal with people here, there will always be the drive to test out boundaries. If there's the possibility, there will be law-breaking. Hence, since the law-breaking will occur, you must ensure that it can be punished.

It’s an announcement, it could be a bluff, might not.

An announcement must be treated as a veto. Otherwise, there's no point announcing it.

There’s a big gap between “I understand” and “he should’ve done it”.

Well. In a world with the UN working the way it does (or rather doesn't), we'll face that dilemma time and time again. Instead of reacting to urgent causes like violation of human rights, we will argue about the existence of these urgent causes, their legitimacy, who brought them forward, what they might gain from it, etc.. but we won't respond to it, helping those in need. As said, I made my choice regarding this specific intervention - knowing that I'd also prefer a system that would actually work internationally and would abolish the need (and possibility) of unilateral action. But until we have that..

Would you approve?

That largely depends on what you mean by "approve" and the actual bombing done. Carpet-bombing Israeli cities to kill as many "Jewish infidels" as possible won't find my "approval", especially as in advocating, ever. But an hypothetical Iran without the wish to simply annihilate Israel targetting IDF and other legitimate targets to get them to retreat to their international borders, I could "approve", as in I understand why they did it - same as I understand why NATO bombed Yugoslavia.