Question in title. Just wondering as I saw France had proposed an initiative to withdraw because of the US’ shenanigans…
US will leave NATO.
NATO should be dissolved, it’s an old relic of us imperialism that has no place in society
The most downvoted and most upvoted comments, both say the same thing.
People are werid.Because the most upvoted one thinks NATO is a good thing, but since one unreliable country cannot be kicked out, it should be replaced with another alliance with slight changes. This comment just says NATO BAD.
NATO is bad tho, because it allows the US to draw other countries into our imperialist wars and allows its members to threaten non-members with reletive impunity.
To quote Blinken “If you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu”. A NATO without America could be benign tho.
I wouldn’t say it’s that bad. NATO is only defensive, so other members have no obligation to join US wars. I admit, NATO conditions can be used to pressure members, but since everyone is hating attack on Iran or Venezuela, the influence isn’t that big. And sometimes the members fight even against each other in proxy wars, for example US vs Turkey in Syria.
yes. as a geniune western citizen typing with my western democratic hands, i also support dissolution of nato.
Not everyone outflanking you to the left is a Russian agent.
Arrogant liberals always assume they are immune to propaganda. Here you are supporting US imperialism and hegemony, the same things they accuse other nations of doing.
Arrogant clanker-adjacents feigning emotion when their propaganda is called out.
no, i am just being sarcastic towards stupid commies.
No need to be rude.
Also: “yes, I support the military budgets because I’m convinced Russia is an imperialist aggressor nation that we need to defend ourselves from” was the justification for Germany entering WW1. Have we learnt nothing from history?
GoddlessCommie’s take is valid.
Nato is the core organizing instrument of western imperialism. Nato is like Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense shield. It’s easy to look at it and say, 'Well how could anyone object to a tool of defense??’ But if you know anyone about war then you know that establishing an unbreakable defensive capability is what allows an imperial army to slaughter their weaker targets with impunity.
I’m not co-signing GodlessCommie’s point. But we gotta ask: did you like Vietnam? Iraq? Afghanistan? Korea? Venezuela? Nicaragua? Georgia? Libya? Ukraine? Gaza? Because arguably, all of this shit rests upon the conditions established by NATO and US imperialism. So… It’s not unreasonable to ask whether NATO has actually fostered peace or just fostered peace for the people who wage wars.
Could you explain exactly how NATO and US imperialism led to Russia invading Ukraine?
Why do you ignore every other conflict in the comment above?
It might surprise you, but I do not actually get paid to post comments on Lemmy for living, so I am allowed to focus on the part of the argument that I think is strangest.
The author of that comment was free to reply in turn by something along the lines of, “Fine, then drop Ukraine from the list, because I don’t need it to make my point.” Instead, they doubled down that it belongs there.
I wrote a long answer and then accidentally hit the back button and don’t have the patience to retype it.
The short version is that Vladimir Putin is responsible for the invasion of Ukraine. I don’t want any confusion about that.
NATO’s influence was that the US has been advancing against Russia for decades even after their country collapsed, and it was obviously nakedly escalatory. Combined with the US is overall foreign policy, which has always been imperial, we’ve acted as though putting a gun to someone’s head and telling them to stay cool was an actual way of calming things rather than the exact opposite.
I’m not saying that a version of NATO couldn’t have done what it claims to do. But that’s never been the version that has existed.
If by “advancing against Russia” you mean that a bunch of countries were extremely eager to sign up when given the chance, then arguably its Russia’s own fault that they felt the need to join a defense alliance so that their sovereignty would not be threatened in the future. And given that Ukraine has been invaded multiple times by Russia exactly because it does not have a NATO mutual defense guarantee, it sure looks like they had the right idea.
To my understanding no, not unless they break the rules. (Trump breaking rules is as common as oxygen so who knows)
There is no provision and formal mechanism to expel a member state
Article 1
The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.
I am talking about Nato not the UN
That is NATO.
My bad. Still nothing in the article 1 mention that a members can be kicked out
There’s no kicking-out part, no, it didn’t occur to them apparently.
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”
You-know-who invited us to secret wink-wink at the you-know-what.
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.
With blackjacks and …!
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.
shenanigans
Our shenanigans are cheeky and fun
French Lawmaker Files NATO Withdrawal Bid Over Greenland
https://ground.news/article/french-lawmaker-files-nato-withdrawal-bid-over-greenland_0a19a5
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?
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.
I don’t know how useful NATO is without the USA. The EU, for instance, also has a mutual defense clause.
Cries in Canadian
I am sure you can be invited if we all drop NATO.
We’re doing what we can: Canada signs deal deepening European defence and security partnership
Canada and Europe were drawn a little closer together Monday 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.
Wouldn’t be NATO then, it would be EATO
Canada is still in it, Don’t get much more “North Atlantic” then that.
The incredibly short treaty (I’m surprised the comments haven’t linked yet) lacks an expulsion provision. At best, per article 13, every other party may (with 1 year notice) withdraw from the treaty & join a new treaty excluding the party they want to expel. Article 8 prohibits parties of the treaty from entering “into any international engagement in conflict with this Treaty”.
A unanimous agreement to change the treaty to enable expulsion is another possibility.
Destabilizing the world is so much better when America isn’t involved 🥰🥰
What we need is to concentrate power into the hands of a single benevolent ruler with absolute authority. I suggest Winnie the Pooh.
Now Excluding America Treaty Organization (NEATO)
Neat.
Neature
We don’t need to kick out the USA. We should obviously not be sharing Intel any longer but the proof will ultimately be in the pudding. If the USA attacks a NATO ally, NATO rallies to their defence as per article V and the USA is no longer involved.
If anyone else attacks a NATO ally and the USA refuse to abide by article V (despite being the only previous ones to invoke it, dragging many of its (formerly) closest allies into a 2 decade quagmire, then they are no longer in NATO.
If nothing happens and the USA does nothing, we remain in this dog shit status quo
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.
Apparently neither did the US founding fathers… checks and balances my ass.
The sacred no homers
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
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.
that other countries can’t possibly afford.
That other countries neglected over the years, you mean? Weird approach to article 3.
Neglected or were coerced to not cover? Every time Europe has wanted to be on par with the US, the US had undermined the idea. Being the guy with the bigger stick has always been the ideal for the US. And that includes a less powerful Europe.
EU countries did underinvest, but the US is able to invest in multiple weapon platforms and logistics capabilities that wealthy but small countries can’t possibly afford on their own.
The Libyan War was a good example. The EU nations that wanted to intervene in the war needed the US to provide ATC duties and provide supplies after the countries’ missile reserves ran out.
Yes but the US is an enemy now
