Question in title. Just wondering as I saw France had proposed an initiative to withdraw because of the US’ shenanigans…
Now Excluding America Treaty Organization (NEATO)
Neat.
Neature
America looks like that kind of parent that says “you don’t need anyone, you have daddy. Everyone else is just jealous of how amazing you are”. The problem is that those kids grow up alone and end up depressed and with relationship problems.
I really hope america declaring war to the whole world does not end up being the end of humanity
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.
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.I think we should go with GDI, Global Defence Initiative
Meanwhile US creates the GWI
You mean the Brotherhood of Nod
because it’s full of yes men?
doesn’t necessarily need to be short for North Atlantic, could be Not America’s no. 2
Eurovision 2
2na2to
Keep the name and call it NATO: Nations Against Trump Organization
I propose the name that @DaddleDew@lemmy.world proposed
Now Excluding America Treaty Organization (NEATO)
A new NATO with blackjack and hookers
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.
Consensus decision-making is a group decision-making process in which participants work together to develop proposals for actions that achieve a broad acceptance. Consensus is reached when everyone in the group assents to a decision (or almost everyone; see stand aside) even if some do not fully agree to or support all aspects of it. It differs from simple unanimity, which requires all participants to support a decision. Consensus decision-making in a democracy is consensus democracy.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making
Consensus is far more democratic than majority rule, which is the norm in most Western democracies.
only if all actors are working in good faith.
How about nay2? Thst way, when it comes to the unavoidable acoustical misunderstandings, it’s also the answer to what’s talked about.
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
just make a new alliance.
Call it NOUSA
NO U
I think this gets discussed in the context of the European Union whenever Poland or Hungary uses their veto power to block something important. Basically, the idea is to start “EU 2” and then not invite the offending countries. Then say that EU 2 replaces EU 1 and refuse to let anyone else tell you otherwise.
yeah, i think ppl just need to remember: everything about society is made up. these things aren’t handed down by God. they are not eternal.
they were made by man, and they can be replaced. all we lack is the will to do so.
To be fair, while this is technically true, NATO also has like, staff and infrastructure and shit
yes, for sure. i didn’t say it was easy, but if we want to, we can. we can do just about anything.
s/Poland/Slovakia/
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.
Yes but the US is an enemy now
that other countries can’t possibly afford.
That other countries neglected over the years, you mean? Weird approach to article 3.
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.
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.
Neglected or were coerced to not cover?
Corrupt politicians don’t need coercion, but yeah.
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.
They want it to survive and outlast Trump. Kicking out the US is Putin’s wet dream.
Russia can’t even handle Ukraine. What are they going to do against the rest of NATO, even without the US?
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. Take down the strongest military alliance (or cut in half if you want) in history that’s been in place for 70 years, yeah that’s a huge massive jizz in your pants accomplisment. Your entire framing is frankly wrong.
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.
Russia doesn’t have those capabilities either. They duck tape consumer grade GPS units for cars into their fighter jets built in the 70s. The war in the Ukraine has exhausted aka destroyed a huge amount of Russian equipment. Tanks, jets, ships, and fucking subs. They are using fucking donkeys for Christ sake to supply the front line with ammo.
NATO minus the USA vs Russia would be tough but if one or two NATO countries fight like Ukraine has then Russia is toast. And if NATO sticks together that is.
Two things can be simultaneously true:
-
Russia has suffered substantial loss of materiel etc.
-
Russia still has effective command and control systems. Whereas the EU depends heavily on America for advanced targeting (think the Ukranian long range missile strikes on refineries in recent months.)
Here’s a fairly accessible article on some of the difficulties/timelines for a post American NATO:
(Notable quote from someone wiser than myself “We’re almost completely dependent on U.S. intelligence for satellite and everything that goes with it”)
-
Imagine you are doing a tarzan vine jump, and I cut your vine while you are jumping then say “See, you wouldn’t be able to do it without my vines!!!”. Yeah man, timing matters.
Break it up using his puppet in the white house.
Well, Russia is sort of holding back. They have tactical nukes, not sure how many of those nato has without the US. And going ballistic doesn’t end well for anyone. But Russia need the land of major nato members. They will pick on non-nato countries mostly, and more often they will do it by cutting off trade routes and such. Maybe they use thier now seasoned military to pick off some minor nato members, just to distract Nato from everything else. With the US pulling back from the international stage, Russia and Chine can divvy up a lot of the world.
Not using nukes isn’t holding back its not inviting armageddon.
The tactical ones are a grey area. They can be small enough not to end the world. They can also have far less long term effects than the larger and older ones. In short, you could nuke a military base as apposed to a city. They can be delivered as an artilery shell. So if Russia used one. I doubt the world would immediately luanch thier strategic arsenal in response.
It’s dubious that they have useful nukes available to just drop in an shell to start with. For practical purposes their nukes are fairly large and there are other considerations. Poorly maintained shit may malfunction creating additional doubt as to their military might and it might trigger additional aid by the rest of the world. They can’t actually fight NATO so actions have to be carefully calibrated so as not to bring the rest of the world or even just more of their aid into the fray lest it become even more expensive or even impossible to win.
I will say I don’t know what Russia specifically has in thier arsenal beyond the general “tactical nukes”. But artillery shell or missle… it makes little difference. Tactical nukes are relatively new, so aren’t much of an age concern as the bigger older stuff. Functionality concerns, only they really know. And I agree, which is why I said they are holding back. But if the situation changes, they may not need to hold back.
The US has access to all of the systems. From a security standpoint they would want to build a new organization.
And then they will use US made systems. But the vendors will locate some computers in Europe, so it’s totally sovereign.
And we will not take being fired well.
To my understanding no, not unless they break the rules. (Trump breaking rules is as common as oxygen so who knows)
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”
With blackjacks and …!
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.
You-know-who invited us to secret wink-wink at the you-know-what.
I don’t know how useful NATO is without the USA. The EU, for instance, also has a mutual defense clause.
Cries in Canadian
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.
I am sure you can be invited if we all drop NATO.
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.
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.
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.
shenanigans
Our shenanigans are cheeky and fun
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.
The sacred no homers
