Question in title. Just wondering as I saw France had proposed an initiative to withdraw because of the US’ shenanigans…

  • favoredponcho@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    4 hours ago

    The US has access to all of the systems. From a security standpoint they would want to build a new organization.

  • cosmicrookie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    14 hours ago

    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

    • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      12 hours ago

      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.

    • krashmo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      15 hours ago

      Russia can’t even handle Ukraine. What are they going to do against the rest of NATO, even without the US?

      • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        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.

      • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        13 hours ago

        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. Sun Tzu stuff, when your enemy is larger than you, divide them. Take down the strongest military alliance (or cut in half if you want) in history thats been in place for 70 years, yeah that’s a huge massive jizz in your pants accomplisment. Your entire framing is frankly wrong,

  • redlemace@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    16 hours ago

    To my understanding no, not unless they break the rules. (Trump breaking rules is as common as oxygen so who knows)

  • Kühlschrank@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    15 hours ago

    I don’t know how useful NATO is without the USA. The EU, for instance, also has a mutual defense clause.

      • trashcan@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        8 hours ago

        Edit: I meant to find a more recent article: Canada clinches deal to join Europe’s €150B defense scheme Dec. 1, 2025

        Canada has reached a final agreement to join the EU’s €150 billion Security Action for Europe program, two EU diplomats told POLITICO, marking the first time a third country will formally participate in the bloc’s flagship joint procurement initiative.

        The agreement was later confirmed by the European Commission.

        “This is the next step in our deepening cooperation and symbolic of the shared priorities of the European Union and Canada,” it said in a joint statement with Canada.

        The breakthrough follows months of technically complex negotiations and was communicated directly to ministers taking part in Monday’s Foreign Affairs Council; Defense Commissioner Andrius Kubilius informed delegations that negotiations with Ottawa had concluded.

        Canada’s accession to the loan-for-weapons SAFE scheme gives Ottawa access to jointly financed defense projects and allows Canadian companies to bid into EU-supported joint procurement projects. For Brussels, securing a G7 partner strengthens the credibility of SAFE as it seeks to coordinate long-term weapons demand and ramp up Europe’s defense industrial base.

        Under SAFE, third countries can account for a maximum of 35 percent of the value of a weapons system paid for by the scheme; Canada will be able to have a larger share but it will have to pay a fee “commensurate with the benefits the Partner Country and its entities are expected to derive,” factoring in GDP, industrial competitiveness and the depth of cooperation with European manufacturers.

        Other issues tackled in negotiations covered conditions on intellectual property control and limits on non-EU inputs for sensitive systems including drones, missile-defense assets and strategic enablers.


        We’re doing what we can: Canada signs deal deepening European defence and security partnership

        Canada and Europe were drawn a little closer together on [June 23rd, 2025] 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.

  • altphoto@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    16 hours ago

    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”

    • ViatorOmnium@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      15 hours ago

      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.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    16 hours ago

    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.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        15 hours ago

        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?

        • RyanDownyJr@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          12 hours ago

          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.

  • dogbert@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    16 hours ago

    Destabilizing the world is so much better when America isn’t involved 🥰🥰

    • AmidFuror@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      15 hours ago

      What we need is to concentrate power into the hands of a single benevolent ruler with absolute authority. I suggest Winnie the Pooh.

    • 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      16 hours ago

      yes. as a geniune western citizen typing with my western democratic hands, i also support dissolution of nato.

      • GodlessCommie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        17
        ·
        15 hours ago

        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.

          • Cowbee_Admirer@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            6 hours ago

            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?

        • ruuster13@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          13 hours ago

          Arrogant clanker-adjacents feigning emotion when their propaganda is called out.