this post was submitted on 05 Apr 2026
191 points (97.5% liked)

World News

55321 readers
1777 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
 

cross-posted from : https://lemmy.zip/post/62014061

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] sifar@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 hours ago

My best breakups have been when I didn't wait for the best or right time to break up. Because once you are there, even if you wait, you know it's never going to be the right time; it will only fester and fester until your entirety is gradually dragged into an existential sepsis.

[–] CircaV@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 hours ago

I hope America leaves, next 9/11 no one will be obliged to help them out.

[–] Gonzako@lemmy.world 6 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

No american NATO? I was calling for it way back when trump was doing the greenland threats

[–] Gammelfisch@lemmy.world 3 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

I called it after Helsinki 2018.

[–] Gonzako@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (2 children)

What happened then ? wasn't born yet

[–] Squirrelanna@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 5 hours ago

You're less than 8 years old?

[–] andxz@lemmy.world 0 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

Putin told him who's in charge, in case he somehow thought he'd be off the hook because he's now a big man president. Then he threw out the interpreter so he could gobble Putin's balls while he has the chance.

The rest I'll leave to your imagination.

You're totally wrong, he actually gave Putin a rim job.

[–] HugeNerd@lemmy.ca 0 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Oh yes, Putin's in charge, that's why he blew up his own pipeline, cleverly waited for Biden to be president to invade, then got Trump to attack Iran, Russia's ally.

Does anything make sense in conspiracy land? Or is it only the other guys that are conspiracy theorists, but you are a fact-based scientist?

[–] andxz@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

No, I'm sure you're completely correct and they had a totally appropriate conversation between two sane adults. Nothing nefarious going on there.

Just because I'm curious, who do you think benefits the most from the US completely imploding their military on this little adventure they're on right now?

[–] Adderbox76@lemmy.ca 8 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Don't let the doorknob hit their ass on the way out.

Worst case scenario is Russia tries to take advantage of the situation and gets curb stomped by a NATO that is roughly 30% weaker but still more than powerful enough to handle the paper tiger that Russia has proven itself to be.

Trump is dead within a year, guaranteed. The GOP will fall to infighting after the cult of personality ends, and when the next president wants to clean up his mess and rejoin NATO, they can be allowed back in without the bullshit VETO that they for some reason have. They can return as an equal, not as a boss.

[–] DMCMNFIBFFF@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

I kinda hope Trump lives and runs in the 2028 GOP primaries—the GOP deserves it.

[–] CanadaPlus@futurology.today 3 points 8 hours ago

Diplomats say France wants to lead the mission, exclude America and bring in India and perhaps China.

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.

New bloc goes brrrr.

Also, no thanks to this guy, who's basically been supporting the complacency this whole time:

“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.”

[–] sturmblast@lemmy.world 7 points 19 hours ago

Trump is such a loser

[–] Cooltag@lemmy.org 6 points 22 hours ago

Baby Trump is furious.

[–] GardenGeek@europe.pub 84 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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 30 points 1 day ago (4 children)

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.

[–] BigBenis@lemmy.world 5 points 6 hours ago

America can't just go back to the way things were before Trump. Trump is a symptom of deeper systematic problems. If we try to pretend this all just goes away when he does, we're going to find ourselves right back in the same shit in a few years when the base latches on to the next psychopath.

[–] cy888@lemmy.world 16 points 1 day ago (1 children)

1945 to date, not 250 years

Until WW2, USA was not a world power

[–] Lucius_Sweet@lemmy.world 7 points 22 hours ago

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 13 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (5 children)

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

[–] ms_lane@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

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 22 points 1 day ago (8 children)

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.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] mnastroguy@lemmy.zip 12 points 1 day ago (4 children)

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.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] spitfire@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Now we're going to have to do that to USA...

[–] spitfire@lemmy.world 1 points 23 hours ago

And Russia, Israel, China… then list would have to grow again.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] hellequin67@lemmy.zip 41 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

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 charge without European bases and or airspace.

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

[–] SuspciousCarrot78@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

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 4 points 22 hours ago

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."

[–] kunaltyagi@programming.dev 1 points 1 day ago

In the cabinets of diff govt. Most govt seem to like USA despite the populace not liking it

[–] kreskin@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

F-35 program needed to die anyway. Grossly expensive shared-production 'Fighter program as political tool' is overloading it to the point of making it useless. And if our adverseries learn how to systematically defeat it, we are left with an entirely useless coalition air force. Better to have diversity.

[–] Einskjaldi@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Except that it's vastly better than anything else and in a peer to peer fight with a full air force the side with f35s against a side that doesn't have stealth planes will win easily every time.

[–] kreskin@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

True for now. Drones have worryingly shown that things can evolve quickly lately.

[–] Einskjaldi@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

If you're interested then perun on YouTube has pretty good videos on the whole thing, but like everything else it will be both and the side with f35 and drones will always win, and the key part is that you can get a drone program going quickly while a stealth fighter or even a jet engine takes two decades.

[–] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

Personally, I think the R&D times of planes and other mainstream gear takes so long, is because there isn't genuine necessity. First and foremost, the MiC exists to enrich elite critters - actual defense of the nation is tertiary. The secondary is just to make fancy gear that looks neat for battle glamour, but lacks substance for warfare.

I suspect an actual peer-to-peer war between NATO and Dogey America would result in much faster development time. Also many failures, but necessity would force rethinking on how to produce weapons. I listen to many videos about plane development, and WW2 really stood out in how many fails there were, while the envelope constantly got pushed.

My prediction is that Europe would be much better than America when it comes to transitioning into a true war economy, because they have a less corrupted MiC to get in the way.

[–] Mrkawfee@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Good. Hosting US bases just makes you a target.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

No americas treaty organization.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

No americas treaty organization.

Hey! What did we do? -- Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Bolivia, etc.

[–] TrippaSnippa@aussie.zone 2 points 1 day ago

It's No Americas, they're allowed to have one.

load more comments
view more: next ›