this post was submitted on 11 Jan 2026
149 points (96.9% liked)

No Stupid Questions

45287 readers
887 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Question in title. Just wondering as I saw France had proposed an initiative to withdraw because of the US' shenanigans....

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] DaddleDew@lemmy.world 84 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Now Excluding America Treaty Organization (NEATO)

[–] dantel@programming.dev 23 points 22 hours ago (1 children)
[–] thermal_shock@lemmy.world 14 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (1 children)
[–] lime@feddit.nu 84 points 23 hours ago (3 children)

as far as i understand it, nato does not have any democratic principles in its rules because was assumed that everyone in it wants the same thing, so everything needs to be done with full agreement. that's why sweden and finland were blocked from entering for multiple years, turkiye would not allow them in.

so basically, as long as the us wants to be in nato, it will be in nato. better to scrap it and start again. i propose the name na2.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 16 points 22 hours ago (3 children)

i propose the name na2.

Clever, but I don't see why it should be limited to North Atlantic countries.
If for instance Australia and South Korea want to join, that should be an option.

[–] Damage@feddit.it 5 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

I think we should go with GDI, Global Defence Initiative

Meanwhile US creates the GWI

[–] lime@feddit.nu 9 points 21 hours ago

doesn't necessarily need to be short for North Atlantic, could be Not America's no. 2

[–] Cowbee_Admirer@reddthat.com 0 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

What if China wants to join? Or Russia? What would be the policy?

[–] 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip 2 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

the policy shoud be "this is union of democratic countries"

[–] Cowbee_Admirer@reddthat.com 1 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

And who decides which countries are democratic and which are not?

[–] 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip 2 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

we have the whole field of expertise for that, we call it the political science. and no one with more than 2 brain cells thinks china or russia are democratic countries.

[–] Guilvareux@feddit.uk 1 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (1 children)

So having 2 braincells should be a policy then!

[–] 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip 1 points 13 hours ago

that would be necessary, not sufficient condition.

[–] Cowbee_Admirer@reddthat.com 0 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (1 children)

I doubt political scientists in China agree with, say, German political scientists' definition of democracy. What supranational organization will decide which country's political scientists are correct?

I could perfectly well argue that France isn't Democratic. The majority of the population voted for a leftist coalition that is being blocked by the president of the republic from being elected, and Macron has already skipped the democratic will of the people by declaring emergency measures to pass antidemocratic legislation such as the increase of retirement age.

In Greece, when a leftist government (Syriza) was elected around 2010 after the huge economic crisis around a platform of reviewing the state debt and democratically decided on referendum to do so, the European Central Bank threatened with dropping its obligations towards Greece and forced neoliberal austerity policy.

In Berlin, the people democratically voted through direct referendum for a cap to rent prices, and shortly after the highest court of Germany declared it illegal and rent prices were uncapped again (despite economic studies of the policy results in its limited lifespan prove it was effective in lowering rent pricing).

In Spain (my homeland), when a leftist party (Podemos) was getting ranked 3rd in the country by polls and was on trend to overtake the socialdemocrats (PSOE), an illegal police operation directed from the ministry of internal affairs fabricated false evidence of funding of said leftist party from Venezuela and Iran and leaked these falsified police reports to all media before the elections, which destroyed the popularity of the party.

I gotta say, being a leftist in Europe, it doesn't feel democratic at all that all the choice we have is to vote once every four years the colour of the party that will impose neoliberal austerity policy and raise military expenditure (all countries in the EU do this)

[–] 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip 1 points 13 hours ago

I doubt political scientists in China agree with, say, German political scientists’ definition of democracy. What supranational organization will decide which country’s political scientists are correct?

china is free to form an alliance with anyone they want to, as long as that entity wishes same. and the democratic countries have the same right. you are either one of the <2 brain cells people, or a sea-lion, either way, i am done with you.

[–] Typhoon@lemmy.ca 1 points 13 hours ago

Keep the name and call it NATO: Nations Against Trump Organization

[–] Klear@quokk.au 10 points 22 hours ago
[–] cosmicrookie@lemmy.world 26 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

They way I see it, USA can't be kicked out but it can leave.

That said I don't see a problem in making a new NATO, without the US and (hopefully) without veto rights

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 17 points 19 hours ago

Part of the problem of creating a non-American NATO is that the USA provides a ton of capabilities and logistics that other countries can't possibly afford.

It is the reason why there has been a push to create an EU military instead.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 35 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

They want it to survive and outlast Trump. Kicking out the US is Putin's wet dream.

[–] krashmo@lemmy.world 13 points 22 hours ago (3 children)

Russia can't even handle Ukraine. What are they going to do against the rest of NATO, even without the US?

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 8 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago)

They aren't going to invade the UK, but they want them out of the EU. You sabotage your enemy as much as possible, even if you're not going to war immediately. Sun Tzu stuff, when your enemy is larger than you, divide them. Take down the strongest military alliance (or cut in half if you want) in history thats been in place for 70 years, yeah that's a huge massive jizz in your pants accomplisment. Your entire framing is frankly wrong,

[–] MyBrainHurts@piefed.ca 7 points 21 hours ago

When the US briefly revoked command and control (think, satellite connections, real time intelligence, missile warning etc) Ukraine suffered heavy casualties quickly. Were thr US to walk away, neither Ukraine or NATO has those same capabilities. NATO minus US vs Russia, in the immediate future would be incredibly bloody and possibly fall in Russia's favour.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] redlemace@lemmy.world 16 points 23 hours ago

To my understanding no, not unless they break the rules. (Trump breaking rules is as common as oxygen so who knows)

[–] MyBrainHurts@piefed.ca 8 points 21 hours ago

It's one of those symbolic initiatives. There may be an official mechanism but right now, it would be a disaster without NATO. Right now, the US has most of the Command and Control logistics (think constant satellite connection, missiled detection systems etc.) That stuff is super expensive and the assumption was that America was an ally, so not a lot of duplication was built in.

A NATO without the US dooms Ukraine and presumably, whatever hits of Eastern Europe Putin feels like holding.

It's shitty, frustrating and awful but it's also the grim, current reality. We didn't realize our allies would become two bit thugs.

[–] altphoto@lemmy.today 8 points 23 hours ago (3 children)

Just leave NATO and have a secret one without telling us at all.

All we would see is things like "the leaders of such and such had a meeting Wednesday at whatever place"

[–] whyNotSquirrel@sh.itjust.works 6 points 22 hours ago

With blackjacks and ....!

[–] ViatorOmnium@piefed.social 3 points 22 hours ago

That wouldn't solve the immediate problem, which is adversarial officers being infiltrated at all levels of our defense structures. NATO is much more than government meetings, it has permanent structures that serve as the foundation of European security. If our leaders were not complete idiots there would be a second foundation built around the EU, but the Common Security and Defence Policy is nowhere near ready to replace NATO yet.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 9 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

I saw France had proposed an initiative to withdraw because of the US’ shenanigans…

Where?

France is leading NATO air and ground troops this year, and I didn't see anything about France leaving NATO when I just checked.

[–] RyanDownyJr@lemmy.world 4 points 23 hours ago (1 children)
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 10 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (1 children)

Clémence Guetté, Vice President of France's National Assembly, submitted a parliamentary resolution calling for France to withdraw from NATO's integrated command structure, citing President Trump's threats to seize Greenland from NATO ally Denmark as evidence the US-led alliance threatens world peace.

So one politician from France submitted a resolution in the French government to do it.

And you...

You honestly and legitimately think that is the same thing as:

I saw France had proposed an initiative to withdraw because of the US’ shenanigans

Like, you didn't just go and try to find a source but didn't read it. You just don't understand how what that says and what you said are vastly different things?

[–] RyanDownyJr@lemmy.world 1 points 19 hours ago

I understand words matter so maybe I used too forceful of words describing what they (or this one person) is doing. Sure, not all of France is pushing it, but the stone is starting to move down hill I guess.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] makyo@lemmy.world 7 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

I don’t know how useful NATO is without the USA. The EU, for instance, also has a mutual defense clause.

[–] MajorMajormajormajor@lemmy.ca 3 points 21 hours ago (2 children)
[–] can@sh.itjust.works 3 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

Edit: I meant to find a more recent article: Canada clinches deal to join Europe’s €150B defense scheme Dec. 1, 2025

Canada has reached a final agreement to join the EU’s €150 billion Security Action for Europe program, two EU diplomats told POLITICO, marking the first time a third country will formally participate in the bloc’s flagship joint procurement initiative.

The agreement was later confirmed by the European Commission.

"This is the next step in our deepening cooperation and symbolic of the shared priorities of the European Union and Canada," it said in a joint statement with Canada.

The breakthrough follows months of technically complex negotiations and was communicated directly to ministers taking part in Monday's Foreign Affairs Council; Defense Commissioner Andrius Kubilius informed delegations that negotiations with Ottawa had concluded.

Canada’s accession to the loan-for-weapons SAFE scheme gives Ottawa access to jointly financed defense projects and allows Canadian companies to bid into EU-supported joint procurement projects. For Brussels, securing a G7 partner strengthens the credibility of SAFE as it seeks to coordinate long-term weapons demand and ramp up Europe’s defense industrial base.

Under SAFE, third countries can account for a maximum of 35 percent of the value of a weapons system paid for by the scheme; Canada will be able to have a larger share but it will have to pay a fee “commensurate with the benefits the Partner Country and its entities are expected to derive,” factoring in GDP, industrial competitiveness and the depth of cooperation with European manufacturers.

Other issues tackled in negotiations covered conditions on intellectual property control and limits on non-EU inputs for sensitive systems including drones, missile-defense assets and strategic enablers.


We're doing what we can: Canada signs deal deepening European defence and security partnership

Canada and Europe were drawn a little closer together on [June 23rd, 2025] after Prime Minister Mark Carney signed a strategic defence and security partnership with the European Union.

The agreement opens the door for Canadian companies to participate in the $1.25-trillion ReArm Europe program, which is seen as a step toward making Canada less reliant on — and less vulnerable to — the whims of the United States.

Eventually, it will also help the Canadian government partner with other allied nations to buy military equipment under what's known as the SAFE program.

[–] Korhaka@sopuli.xyz 3 points 21 hours ago

I am sure you can be invited if we all drop NATO.

[–] mrdown@lemmy.world 8 points 23 hours ago

There is no provision and formal mechanism to expel a member state

[–] itisileclerk@lemmy.world 2 points 21 hours ago

US will leave NATO.

load more comments
view more: next ›