137
submitted 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] FaceDeer@fedia.io 2 points 5 hours ago

Or, alternately, preparing NATO for America's exit. I could easily see a scenario where they're more trouble than they're worth.

[-] HubertManne@piefed.social 1 points 4 hours ago

that started more than a year ago.

[-] someguy3@lemmy.world -3 points 5 hours ago

Think 40 years from now, what will the be the criteria for success? It's keeping the US in. Not some organizational shuffling.

[-] FaceDeer@fedia.io 3 points 5 hours ago

40 years is an unreasonably long timeframe to be making projections like this. Assuming the US is still having elections there will have been 10 opportunities for their government to completely flip-flop its intentions in that time.

[-] someguy3@lemmy.world -1 points 5 hours ago

What? The point is to take a long term view of what is successful and what is not. When you're sitting there in retirement, what is the measure of success in your career. Success for Rutte (and Nato) is not some organizational shuffling, it's keeping the US.

[-] FaceDeer@fedia.io 2 points 5 hours ago

Success for Rutte (and NATO) is protecting NATO members against invasion or attack.

If the US' membership is raising that risk for the other members rather than lowering it, then in that situation letting the US exit can be a net benefit for NATO's members (which would no longer include the US).

[-] someguy3@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

I see that as the 3rd goal. First is US in. Second is Europe miltiary industrial capacity. Third is day to day functioning.

You don't just want functioning for today. You want a long lasting and strong oganization. I know everyone's favorite thing right now is US bad (and yes there's plenty to work on) but no, US membership is not raising risk. No one is going to invade NATO when US industry and technology is on the other side. Again, 40 years now, long term view, big stategic picture, big industrial capacity picture, you want the US in Nato.

[-] echodot@feddit.uk 0 points 5 hours ago

Yes but if they don't it will be 40 years of extra security.

I can't really see how America been in NATO can be anything other than a good thing. They're not great allies at the moment but that uncertainty about how America would respond is what's keeping China from attacking Taiwan.

It's not worth throwing all that away just so we don't have to talk to Trump anymore.

this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2026
137 points (100.0% liked)

World News

56902 readers
1371 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS