3 ms·
NATO without the USA would be a different thing, sure, but why does the USA behaving against the interests of NATO members have to end NATO?
by rzzzwilson 9mo ago
NATO without the USA would be a different thing, sure, but why does the USA behaving against the interests of NATO members have to end NATO?
- mullingitover 9mo ago> behaving against the interests of NATO members That's a very passive voice way to talk about the United States attacking a NATO ally in order to steal their territory. The US committing an act of war against NATO should end NATO if the treaty is worth anything at all. This type of thing should realistically end the United States. The country does not deserve to wield this amount of global power if it's going to engage in thug behavior.
- Zigurd 9mo agoThe recklessness is astonishing. Threatening war over an inhospitable island that would be an economical to exploit risks, for example, ending the fab business in the US because ASML won't/can't send technicians. I suppose maps other than the Mercator projection are too woke.
- tim-tday 9mo agoBecause if any NATO member is attacked the agreement says nato must defend as a group. If US attacks Greenland NATO is technically required to defend. They obviously could not go to war with the US and would instead dissolve NATO.
- rzzzwilson 9mo agoWhy not just expel them from NATO? A NATO-style alliance is obviously something Europe wants, see the rush to join after Russia turned more feral than usual, even by Sweden, neutral for centuries. If it isn't possible to expel a NATO member just dissolve NATO and reconstitute without the USA.