this post was submitted on 07 Feb 2025
240 points (98.0% liked)

World News

40612 readers
2098 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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.

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/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

NATO allies informally discussed deploying troops to Greenland after Trump threatened military action to seize the Danish territory.

Germany and other European nations explored possible responses, including invoking NATO’s Article 5, though it was ruled out due to US veto power.

Denmark pledged $1.5 billion to bolster Arctic security, while NATO considered expanding its presence.

Trump cites strategic concerns over Russian and Chinese influence and US missile defense. NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte acknowledged Arctic security needs but sought to defuse tensions.

top 36 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Blade9732@lemmy.world 14 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Hey NATO, you don't have to send any troops. Just tell the Pentagon that you sent the Swedes and the Finns. When they say "Where? We don't see anyone" Just respond"Exactly"

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago

No you send them the ghost roadsigns of the Finnish winter and say "that direction".

Probably NSFW, they're dead Nazis and Russians.

https://www.ww2incolor.com/gallery/dramatic-photos/37639/soviet-soldier-frozen-corpse-used-as-road-sign

[–] TehWorld@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago

Russia has the option to do the funniest thing ever.

[–] Chainweasel@lemmy.world 50 points 1 week ago (5 children)

Germany and other European nations explored possible responses, including invoking NATO’s Article 5, though it was ruled out due to US veto power.

And this is the only reason why Trump didn't pull the US out of NATO.
Because of the veto power, he can effectively block them from taking action against the United States.
NATO is dead.
If other world leaders had half a brain between them, they would be forming a new alliance without the United States as we speak.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 7 points 6 days ago

There's nothing stopping them from just ignoring the veto of the country they're worried about...

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 6 days ago

Yes, a new military alliance and other new non-US Western treaties needs to happen. Badly.

Although, he's saying he wants 5% spending from all members now, so maybe he's still planning to "shoot himself in the foot" by leaving.

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 4 points 6 days ago (1 children)

"We'll make our own NATO, with blackjack and hookers!"

[–] Gsus4@mander.xyz 2 points 6 days ago

That was the CSTO and Armenia says the only good thing it had was the hookers...

[–] lemmylommy@lemmy.world 40 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The new alliance already exists. It’s called the European Union.

[–] cygnus@lemmy.ca 15 points 1 week ago (2 children)

The EU doesn't include the UK, Canada, Norway, or Turkey. It isn't really a good NATO substitute.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 8 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Yeah, we really need some kind of external European defence sphere to cover us in Canada. No amount of maple syrup (or rare earth metals) is too great a cost.

[–] TrenchcoatFullofBats@belfry.rip 2 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Two of those are Commonwealth countries. Maybe a common defense mechanism could be agreed. Instead of Iron Dome, it could be called King Dome.

[–] P00ptart@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago

You could make all kinds of jokes about king dome come.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 6 days ago

I guess, but the UK is a pretty shit-tier nuclear power. I'd really want it to include France.

[–] Sunshine@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 week ago (2 children)

They could also kick out the United States.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 9 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

NATO has no provision to remove members. It's even worse than the EU where a single other member is enough to veto it.

Stop doing that, Western leaders. 3/4 vote should be enough for anything.

[–] Chainweasel@lemmy.world 19 points 1 week ago (2 children)

They literally can't, the US is a permanent member.

[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 11 points 6 days ago

They could reorganize as “NOT-U” under all the same terms but without the US.

[–] thisismyname@lemm.ee 17 points 1 week ago

We're seeing from the White House that written words, rules, and laws are meaningless to them. They're only a permanent member because words say so, and the members are willing to honour those words. If the USA were to attack another NATO member I'm sure those words can and will be ignored.

[–] FourPacketsOfPeanuts@lemmy.world 32 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Didn't have "NATO deployed against America" on my bingo card. Plenty of other batshittery, but not that one.

[–] Fiivemacs@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 week ago

I was curious what the plan was when nayo allies attack each other..apparently it's fuck Nazis and trump regardless of the country's status with nato

[–] Sunshine@lemmy.ca 17 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Please send troops to Canada! We can build the barracks to house them by the thousands to stop America from potentially annexing Canada. I wouldn’t put anything past that orange buffoon.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 6 days ago

I mean, we're having trouble housing ourselves...

[–] blakenong@lemmings.world 5 points 6 days ago

Canada should just offer citizenship to anyone willing to patrol the border for 5 years.

[–] cyborganism@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Send them to Canada too pls.

[–] blakenong@lemmings.world 6 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Canada should just import their army from the US, plenty of us would be willing to fight.

[–] not_that_guy05@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Foreign legion of Canada?

That will do so much damage just like it's going in Ukraine.

[–] blakenong@lemmings.world 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Better the foreign legion dies than a Canadian, eh?

[–] not_that_guy05@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Why would you want a voluntary group willing to fight for Canada to die?

Do you understand what the foreign legion of Ukraine does?

[–] blakenong@lemmings.world 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

If I was fighting for Canada, who would I be killing?

[–] not_that_guy05@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Don't know. That would be up to your chain of command.

[–] blakenong@lemmings.world 1 points 6 days ago

Sounds like a pretty easy gig if you don’t know who we would be fighting.

As well they should.