this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2026
102 points (100.0% liked)

World News

56906 readers
1203 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
NewsAutoMod@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
lemmyAtom@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
102
NATO chief faces challenge at summit as Trump demands 'loyalty' and not just burden-sharing (apnews.com)
submitted 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world
50 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world 4 points 2 hours ago

This is all saber-rattling on the part of Krasnov and has been since day one.

If the US were going to leave NATO he'd have already started that process. With every day that goes by his own leverage at home is shrinking, while Ukraine still has many supporters in positions of power, meaning that if Krasnov really did want to pull the US out of NATO, it is becoming politically harder and harder to do so.

Additionally, being in NATO is also protective for the US, and this is not without value given as many wars as this fucker has already begun on a whim: somebody somewhere might want to hit back, and remaining in NATO helps deter that to some extent.

So instead, Krasnov just keeps threatening and not doing, even as his own position gets weaker and weaker.

Compare and contrast this with Russia. Saber-rattling is high on the list of Putin's methodology of controlling his nearest neighbors and always has been, but the US has never had to, and why would it?

The simple fact is that the US can't leave NATO for as long as Krasnov is Putin's puppet, because keeping Ukraine OUT of NATO is far more important to Putin than any other consideration.

The second the US leaves NATO is the second the US can no longer veto Ukraine's admission.

So who benefits by all this threatening and not doing? Putin. Krasnov got another phone call and here we are again.

[–] betanumerus@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Lunatic still confuses "individual human called Donald Trump" and "nation called US, regardless of who it contains". NATO is an agreement between nations, not individual humans. "Loyalty" has no place in there.

[–] Lushed_Lungfish@lemmy.ca 11 points 10 hours ago

NATO literally only came together to fight exactly once. When America asked it to. The fuck more do they want?

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 34 points 13 hours ago (3 children)

“If an American president says he no longer wishes to defend the other allies and leaves a NATO summit in protest, then the NATO treaty and its security guarantee aren’t worth very much,” Stoltenberg wrote.

This is absolute bullshit, BTW. NATO leaders have a history of seriously overvaluing the necessity of the US to the alliance.

Yes, obviously, having the world's biggest military power on your side is a really good thing. But, with or without the US, NATO can still be a force for mutual defence. It's a far better thing to have than not have, and defeatist bullshit like this is just kicking the trusses out for no good reason.

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 5 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

The issue is that the US provides a lot of logistics and supply chain support to the rest of NATO countries which makes it very difficult for them to operate without US support. It is made worse as many NATO nations are too small to meaningfully fill specialty units when they can barely provide basic infantry and armor units.

One of the reasons why France keeps pushing for an EU military is so that there is a government entity large enough to fund and pay for these specialty units. Otherwise, France would have to unfairly take on the burden of providing these capabilities itself.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (2 children)

Military satellites are almost entirely US right now, as well. There's a gap in AWACS and similar, but it's closing.

In theory, it should just be a matter of reorganising for the rest of NATO to do their own military logistics. We have the basic equipment and expertise needed.

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 3 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

There are gaps, but those gaps can be fixed. There's a reason Saab are getting so many orders for GlobalEye.

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

The problem is that it doesn't make sense for one country to bear the cost of developing those specialty items when you don't have a country like the US who would do it on its own anyway. There is likely going to need to be a pooling of resources to fund the construction of these items. If you're going to have to pool resources, what entity is going to be the best in receiving these resources and executing contacts to get these capabilities built?

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

Maybe you're getting at the one big army concept, but it's not really politically possible, at this point. In practice, it'll be a smattering of the large nations, with cooperation from smaller nations. The French will probably be key for satellites in specific, because of Guyana.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 2 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

It's because NATO was never just about mutual defense. It's part of the broader Western Bloc, which absolutely doesn't make sense without America at the helm. In the first place none of NATO's member states have had defensive problems that require anything that massive since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 4 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

none of NATO's member states have had defensive problems

Why do we need vaccines? Everyone vaccinated never got sick.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io -1 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

I mean, who's gonna fuck with Spain? France? Britain? Germany? Italy? Canada? Many countries in NATO are safe from foreign aggression for decades to come, NATO or no NATO. If so many of the major members in the defensive alliance don't need defending, then it's probably not a defensive alliance.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 0 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

There have recently been direct annexation threats against Canada.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 0 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Not by anybody NATO would get into a fight with.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 3 points 8 hours ago

The point is to make belligerents back down by raising the cost they'd have to pay by carrying through.

This particular belligerent backs down so often that there's a special acronym for it, so NATO's a perfectly good protective tool here.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 0 points 9 hours ago

Answered in my other reply, link for others https://lemmy.world/post/49055523/24607737

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 3 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

I'd suggest that you try saying this to someone in Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia or Poland, but I don't actually want you to get punched out.

[–] mrdown@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 11 hours ago

I suggest you to say this to Libyan. It was a block created by imperialist to fight the ussr imperialism. I do not believe in dissolving Nato but rather making it a readl defense organization independent of the usa and not being ally with israel

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 0 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

I mean, do you really see Russia beating countries with well armed and trained Western style militaries? Because I sure as hell don't. At worst, an "everyone west of France" alliance would absolutely wipe the floor with Russia if it came down to it. The threat Russia poses to an even somewhat united Eastern and Central Europe is highly exaggerated.

[–] StealthLizardDrop@piefed.social 2 points 11 hours ago (3 children)

Ukraine was a out what 45mil people vs Russia's 115ish? so roughly 1:2. But in smaller places like Latvia (1.8mil), Estonia (1.3mil), Lithuania (2.9mil). Would generally be overrun way before any western leadership would wake up from their nap.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 2 points 8 hours ago

And even if small places could survive an invasion attempt by Russia, it would still have an immense cost in lives and destruction. Why not prevent that in the first place?

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 2 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Sure, but those places would be in some kind of military alliance anyway, the Treaty of Brussels being the most obvious candidate. It's also important to remember that they'd be overrun anyway; what's keeping them safe is the threat of retaliation by the rest of NATO, but even at worst Central and Eastern Europe would be more than enough to provide that threat on their own. My point isn't that a defensive alliance (mostly against Russia) is unnecessary, but that NATO is way, way too big to be only that. Countries like Spain and Britain aren't part of NATO for mutual defense, because there's nothing to defend them from.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 4 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

You really need to look at WW2 history and the reason for NATO. Before WW2 every small country thought they could declare neutrality and sit out the next war: Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, etc. And how did that turn out? Germany just picked them off one by one. Even the countries that tied to engage like Poland and Czechoslovkia were picked off one by one (or served up on a platter).

Read: This disjointed approach did not work at all. The solution? Get a defence alliance that actually came to everyone's defence. And the earlier the better, countries like Spain and Britain are off fighting the war with functioning allies (yes even the small ones) and with control of the map rather than waiting for Russia to be at their doorstep. Think through WW2, would it have been better or worse for the allies if Norway and Denmark didn't fall? It would have been a fuckton easier. Half the reason for NATO is to get the small countries in, not run over one by one, and contributing.

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

Correct. Even with Operation Reassurance, which stations a sizeable contingent of NATO forces in all three states, the NATO assumption is that the Baltics will be largely overrun by any Russian attack before reinforcements can arrive. The strategic goals of the operation are a) to slow any Russian incursion down, and b) to ensure that an attack on any Baltic state would be a direct engagement with a large portion of NATO militaries, thus ensuring that it would constitute an article 5 trigger. As the name suggests, it's more about reassurance - "We stand with these people and will fight to defend them" - than it is about actually stopping a Russian attack.

Edit: As of very recently this is no longer true. See below.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (2 children)

NATO assumption is that the Baltics will be largely overrun

That WAS (past tense) the assumption. After Russia's showing in Ukraine, both the ineptitude and the atrocities, you can be certain they're planning on defending the Baltics from the start.

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

So, apparently you are actually correct, although the change in posture is much more recent than you think. As in, within the last few weeks to months.

I will not be saying more on this because I'll get people in trouble if I do.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

I have no idea if that is the official policy, in any case official policy lags far after ideas come around. After Russia failed to take Ukraine in 3 days, you can rest assured discussions started pretty quickly about holding on to the Baltics. Nothing top secret about that, you can just think it through.

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

I have no idea if that is the official policy

That's OK. I do.

Like I said, you're right, though the change was recent enough that I hadn't been aware of it until I double checked.

You're wrong about the reasons why the posture changed, but I really can't get into that.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

Read: it does not matter. You know you can think about these things before they become official policy.

Sure thing I'm wrong. Just like if you came across my comments saying this years ago you would have said I was wrong. But if you want it's because they studied it and determined that they can hold on to it. You just have to think through it.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 1 points 8 hours ago

Yeah. It's no longer okay to have a plan that says it's okay if Russia takes some territory, we'll just take it back a little later. We've now seen what happens to the people living in territory that happens to.

[–] mrdown@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Yes, obviously, having the world's biggest military power on your side is a really good thing

It is never good. You become dependent on it and countries aliance change all the time

[–] BestBouclettes@jlai.lu 2 points 10 hours ago

Which is exactly what happened here

[–] Faithless@lemmy.world 7 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Time to throw the US out. They are a cancer

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 1 points 8 hours ago

I think it's still better to have them in pissing out, than have them out pissing in. Especially because Trump would take it personally like he takes everything.

Anyway eventually Trump is going to be going to be gone one way or another and then maybe the US will elect someone sane.

[–] abbadon420@sh.itjust.works 7 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Rutte is very good at sucking Trump's dick. He'll probably resolve this soon enough

[–] mrdown@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)
[–] weaselsrippedmyflesh@piefed.social 6 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Your move, Rutte. Gonna cup the balls while you gargle the knob, this time? Or are you gonna grow a spine and rip the band-aid?

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Ripping a bandage off something still in progress is a horrible idea. The rest of NATO doesn't have the capability to replace the US yet.

[–] weaselsrippedmyflesh@piefed.social 2 points 9 hours ago

Granted. A better analogy, perhaps, would be to realize our bandages are already off, and to focus on dressing our own wound with the other adults in the room. Rather than begging and conceding to Trump's demands, which we know will never be met with the US keeping their end of the bargain, at this point.

[–] MonsterMonster@lemmy.world 4 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

Hey Rutte, reach down the front of YOUR trousers and find a pair of balls.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 0 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Rutte's sole job for the next 2.5 years is to keep the US in NATO.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 1 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

Or, alternately, preparing NATO for America's exit. I could easily see a scenario where they're more trouble than they're worth.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 1 points 7 hours ago

that started more than a year ago.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world -4 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Think 40 years from now, what will the be the criteria for success? It's keeping the US in. Not some organizational shuffling.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 2 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

40 years is an unreasonably long timeframe to be making projections like this. Assuming the US is still having elections there will have been 10 opportunities for their government to completely flip-flop its intentions in that time.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 1 points 8 hours ago

Yes but if they don't it will be 40 years of extra security.

I can't really see how America been in NATO can be anything other than a good thing. They're not great allies at the moment but that uncertainty about how America would respond is what's keeping China from attacking Taiwan.

It's not worth throwing all that away just so we don't have to talk to Trump anymore.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world -1 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

What? The point is to take a long term view of what is successful and what is not. When you're sitting there in retirement, what is the measure of success in your career. Success for Rutte (and Nato) is not some organizational shuffling, it's keeping the US.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 2 points 8 hours ago

Success for Rutte (and NATO) is protecting NATO members against invasion or attack.

If the US' membership is raising that risk for the other members rather than lowering it, then in that situation letting the US exit can be a net benefit for NATO's members (which would no longer include the US).

[–] theuniqueone@lemmy.dbzer0.com -5 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

I really hope Trump collapses this imperialist alliance.

[–] TachyonTele_Esq@piefed.social -1 points 1 hour ago

You're so cool and edgy. How do I raise my kid so he doesn't become you?