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

  • redlemace@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    15 days ago

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

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    15 days 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
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        15 days 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
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          15 days 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.

    • krashmo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      15 days ago

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

      • MyBrainHurts@piefed.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        15 days ago

        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.

        • gothic_lemons@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          15 days ago

          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.

          • MyBrainHurts@piefed.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            15 days ago

            Two things can be simultaneously true:

            1. Russia has suffered substantial loss of materiel etc.

            2. 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”)

            https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2025/02/25/mind-the-gaps-europes-to-do-list-for-defense-without-the-us/

        • Potatar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          14 days ago

          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.

      • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        15 days 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.

          • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            14 days ago

            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.

            • michaelmrose@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              14 days ago

              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.

              • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                13 days ago

                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.

                • michaelmrose@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  11 days ago

                  Tactical nukes are relatively new

                  Like new if you time traveled from the 50s We literally conceived of a bazooka launched personal nuke. Generally speaking not much was actually made by anyone and is unlikely to have been maintained as they would have been deemed basically useless for decades as is very expensive to maintain.

      • someguy3@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        edit-2
        15 days 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,

  • cosmicrookie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    56
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    15 days 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
      38
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      15 days 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.

      • 0x0@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        14 days ago

        that other countries can’t possibly afford.

        That other countries neglected over the years, you mean? Weird approach to article 3.

        • bufalo1973@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          14 days ago

          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.

          • 0x0@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            14 days ago

            Neglected or were coerced to not cover?

            Corrupt politicians don’t need coercion, but yeah.

        • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          14 days ago

          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.

  • MyBrainHurts@piefed.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    15 days ago

    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.

  • Kühlschrank@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    15 days 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
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        15 days 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.

  • TheJesusaurus@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    14 days ago

    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

    • NateNate60@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      15 days ago

      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.

      • Nico198X@europe.pub
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        15 days ago

        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.

    • 0x0@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      14 days ago

      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.

    • Andy@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      15 days ago

      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 anything 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.

        • Andy@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          15 days ago

          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.

          • bitcrafter@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            15 days ago

            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.

          • bitcrafter@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            15 days ago

            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.

    • 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      15 days 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
        6
        arrow-down
        19
        ·
        15 days 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.

        • ruuster13@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          15 days ago

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

          • Cowbee_Admirer@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            15 days 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?

            • 0x0@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              14 days ago

              Have we learnt nothing from history?

              You’re talking about humans here…

    • Steve@communick.news
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      15 days ago

      The most downvoted and most upvoted comments, both say the same thing.
      People are werid.

      • ji59@hilariouschaos.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        15 days ago

        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.

        • Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          15 days ago

          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.

          • 0x0@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            14 days ago

            A NATO without America could be benign tho.

            It wouldn’t make sense and nothing militaristic can be considered benign.

          • ji59@hilariouschaos.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            15 days ago

            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.