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

World News

56907 readers
1458 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
jordanlund@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
lemmyAtom@lemmy.world
155
NATO chief faces challenge at summit as Trump demands 'loyalty' and not just burden-sharing (apnews.com)
submitted 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world
52 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world 7 points 3 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 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours 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 16 points 11 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 47 points 15 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 7 points 12 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 5 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 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 5 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 8 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 11 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 1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 1 points 1 hour ago

It doesn't have to be one big army, but it can be a big army designed to take care of the stuff that individual countries can't. After all, it is unfair to put the financial burden to build out the expensive and necessary logistics on the large nations.

[–] mrdown@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 13 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 12 hours ago

Which is exactly what happened here

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 3 points 14 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.

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 4 points 14 hours ago (13 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 4 points 13 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

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 1 points 12 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 2 points 11 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 2 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

There have recently been direct annexation threats against Canada.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 0 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Not by anybody NATO would get into a fight with.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 3 points 10 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 11 hours ago

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

[–] Faithless@lemmy.world 7 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Time to throw the US out. They are a cancer

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 0 points 10 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 13 points 15 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 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)
[–] weaselsrippedmyflesh@piefed.social 8 points 15 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 0 points 11 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 11 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 6 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

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

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 2 points 10 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 9 hours ago

that started more than a year ago.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world -3 points 10 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 3 points 10 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.

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

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).

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

I see that as the 3rd goal. First is US in. Second is Europe miltiary industrial capacity. Third is day to day functioning.

You don't just want functioning for today. You want a long lasting and strong oganization. I know everyone's favorite thing right now is US bad (and yes there's plenty to work on) but no, US membership is not raising risk. No one is going to invade NATO when US industry and technology is on the other side. Again, 40 years now, long term view, big stategic picture, big industrial capacity picture, you want the US in Nato.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 0 points 10 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.

load more comments
view more: next ›