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)
Instead of everyone leaving NATO, could everyone else just kick the US out?
Submitted 1 day ago by RyanDownyJr@lemmy.world to nostupidquestions@lemmy.world
Comments
DaddleDew@lemmy.world 1 day ago
lime@feddit.nu 1 day ago
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.
thethunderwolf@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 hours ago
I propose the name that @DaddleDew@lemmy.world proposed
Now Excluding America Treaty Organization (NEATO)
A new NATO with blackjack and hookers
Buffalox@lemmy.world 1 day ago
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.Damage@feddit.it 1 day ago
I think we should go with GDI, Global Defence Initiative
lime@feddit.nu 1 day ago
doesn’t necessarily need to be short for North Atlantic, could be Not America’s no. 2
PlutoniumAcid@lemmy.world 16 hours ago
Eurovision 2
Cowbee_Admirer@reddthat.com 20 hours ago
What if China wants to join? Or Russia? What would be the policy?
Typhoon@lemmy.ca 20 hours ago
Keep the name and call it NATO: Nations Against Trump Organization
Klear@quokk.au 1 day ago
2na2to
Zombie@feddit.uk 19 hours ago
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]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making
Consensus is far more democratic than majority rule, which is the norm in most Western democracies.
lime@feddit.nu 15 hours ago
only if all actors are working in good faith.
Strider@lemmy.world 15 hours ago
How about nay2? Thst way, when it comes to the unavoidable acoustical misunderstandings, it’s also the answer to what’s talked about.
_Nico198X_@europe.pub 14 hours ago
just make a new alliance.
NateNate60@lemmy.world 14 hours 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.
PrimeMinisterKeyes@leminal.space 6 hours ago
s/Poland/Slovakia/
_Nico198X_@europe.pub 13 hours 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.
lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 15 hours ago
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.
Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 5 hours ago
Wouldn’t be NATO then, it would be EATO
M0oP0o@mander.xyz 5 hours ago
Canada is still in it, Don’t get much more “North Atlantic” then that.
cosmicrookie@lemmy.world 1 day 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 1 day 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.
thethunderwolf@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 hours ago
Yes but the US is an enemy now
0x0@lemmy.zip 11 hours ago
that other countries can’t possibly afford.
That other countries neglected over the years, you mean? Weird approach to article 3.
someguy3@lemmy.world 1 day ago
They want it to survive and outlast Trump. Kicking out the US is Putin’s wet dream.
krashmo@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Russia can’t even handle Ukraine. What are they going to do against the rest of NATO, even without the US?
someguy3@lemmy.world 1 day 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. 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.
MyBrainHurts@piefed.ca 1 day 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.
Klear@quokk.au 1 day ago
Break it up using his puppet in the white house.
Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world 19 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.
favoredponcho@lemmy.zip 19 hours ago
The US has access to all of the systems. From a security standpoint they would want to build a new organization.
matlag@sh.itjust.works 4 hours ago
And then they will use US made systems. But the vendors will locate some computers in Europe, so it’s totally sovereign.
ivanafterall@lemmy.world 8 hours ago
And we will not take being fired well.
ThatGuy46475@lemmy.world 10 hours ago
The sacred no homers
westoidBullshit@sh.itjust.works 14 hours ago
You can kick the US out and it would still be a corrupted cesspool
87Six@lemmy.zip 13 hours ago
Well yea but the US has like… A large percentage of those
redlemace@lemmy.world 1 day ago
To my understanding no, not unless they break the rules. (Trump breaking rules is as common as oxygen so who knows)
K1nsey6@lemmy.world 1 day ago
NATO should be dissolved, it’s an old relic of us imperialism that has no place in society
14th_cylon@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
yes. as a geniune western citizen typing with my western democratic hands, i also support dissolution of nato.
K1nsey6@lemmy.world 1 day 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.
theuniqueone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
Not everyone outflanking you to the left is a Russian agent.
andrewrgross@slrpnk.net 1 day 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 now 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.
bitcrafter@programming.dev 1 day ago
Could you explain exactly how NATO and US imperialism led to Russia invading Ukraine?
Steve@communick.news 1 day ago
The most downvoted and most upvoted comments say the same thing g.
People are werid.ji59@hilariouschaos.com 1 day 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.
pyrinix@kbin.melroy.org 7 hours ago
The US is a founder. It would be hard to.
It's just best to be the EU and extend membership.
MyBrainHurts@piefed.ca 1 day 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.
Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world 19 hours ago
Apparently neither did the US founding fathers… checks and balances my ass.
altphoto@lemmy.today 1 day 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”
P00ptart@lemmy.world 10 hours ago
Lol you couldn’t keep anything that big a secret from the US.
whyNotSquirrel@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
With blackjacks and …!
ViatorOmnium@piefed.social 1 day 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.thehowlingnorth@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
You-know-who invited us to secret wink-wink at the you-know-what.
makyo@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I don’t know how useful NATO is without the USA. The EU, for instance, also has a mutual defense clause.
MajorMajormajormajor@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
Cries in Canadian
can@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
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.
Korhaka@sopuli.xyz 1 day ago
I am sure you can be invited if we all drop NATO.
givesomefucks@lemmy.world 1 day 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.
RyanDownyJr@lemmy.world 1 day ago
French Lawmaker Files NATO Withdrawal Bid Over Greenland
givesomefucks@lemmy.world 1 day 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 gverbment 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?
Quadhammer@lemmy.world 1 day ago
shenanigans
Our shenanigans are cheeky and fun
mrdown@lemmy.world 1 day ago
There is no provision and formal mechanism to expel a member state
0x0@lemmy.zip 11 hours 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.
Blackmist@feddit.uk 11 hours ago
That’s kind of just Europe plus Canada. But the whole point is nukes. Without the US we don’t really have that (the UK has a few but the US has the keys iirc, and France has a token amount), so Europe needs to get those weapons programs going again.
dogs0n@sh.itjust.works 9 hours ago
The UK and France have more than 500 nukes.
The US doesn’t “have the keys” to UK nukes (ie the UK doesn’t keep US approval to fire them), but they are maintained and built by the US (I’m sure if they had to, they could figure it out themselves).
And let’s be real, you don’t need thousands of nukes when a handful (when carefully stored and separated like the UK does in submarines for their active ones) could destroy so much of the planet.
Will a country with 1000 nukes invade a country that has “only” 5?
theuniqueone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
Or you know maybe we should abolish this bad institution.
0x0@lemmy.zip 10 hours ago
The problem is EU’s over-reliance on it to begin with.
You need to fix that before abolishing NATO.
Or… dunno… fix Trump instead?PagPag@lemmy.world 21 hours ago
Damn son. You’re an idiot
GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 21 hours ago
bold position to hold. care to back your argument up with any facts or are you just regurgitating bullshit your handlers told you to say?
dogbert@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
Destabilizing the world is so much better when America isn’t involved 🥰🥰
itisileclerk@lemmy.world 1 day ago
US will leave NATO.
TheJesusaurus@sh.itjust.works 5 hours 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