The United States has maintained longstanding support to NATO. Most recently, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024, enacted on December 22, 2023, prohibits the President from unilaterally withdrawing from NATO without approval of a two-third Senate super-majority or an act of Congress.[71] This bill was a response to Donald Trump’s repeated expressions of interest in withdrawing from the organization.[72][73]
That link also claims the Greens want out of NATO, so I guess they see eye-to-eye with Trump on that one? Honestly, it makes me less likely to support the Greens now that I know that.
I read the link and there are references to greens in several countries. And I suppose I could have assumed you were talking about the US, but I’ve never heard of a Green Party in the US.
I can understand the confusion, because it’s really annoying that a lot of American on Lemmy assumes everything is US-based. Wasn’t as much of an issue pre-Reddit exodus.
In this case though, you’re being downvoted probably because the link sends you directly to the United States section via Withdrawal_from_NATO#United_States, which mentions the Green Party, so the context was there.
What are you talking about? Every “green” party I know in Europe is very much against the war in Ukraine and holds Russia responsible. They are about as anti Russia as it gets. Green parties are also very much pro Europe, they want a stronger Europe with more members and cooperation in the EU. Green parties are either center-left or totally left leaning. Green parties usually get a big chunk of votes, not only marginal like in the US.
Russia is heavily funding and supporting the right and far right parties, who are almost all against a unified Europe. Russia is doing their best to break up the EU with campaigns of misinformation, bots, advertising and direct/indirect funding of right wing political parties.
And Russia is succeeding as well with the far right on the rise all over Europe. They already got Brexit through against all odds and are now working on breaking up the rest. In Germany the rise of the right is still fresh, so there is a lot of resistance. But other countries are much less resistant.
Thanks for the info. I admit my experience was based on the Italian greens who are irrelevant and generally left leaning, which in Italy means Russophile like anything left of the dems, and on what I know of the German greens, which is that they lobbied for getting rid of clean energy and ramping up the use of coal / gas / petrol, all Russian imports.
Russia is heavily funding and supporting the right and far right parties
Welcome to the new warfare that caught the west totally off-guard. The “poorly educated” were the first casualties and have been recycled into the Russian forces.
I’m genuinely curious if there is no way to stop all/most of these influence & astroturf ops, will we just see a walled off internet with hefty firewalls or content moderation at national ‘borders’? It’d be a huge upheaval to the internet, but otherwise we’re stuck trying for a 100% defense against state cyber attacks
My personal take here is that playing defense is a losing game and that we really need to kick off another 1968 movement. A counter culture that is infecting and firmly against Russia and conservatives.
I don’t know about other European countries, but Germany’s greens have kept a relatively tidy ship compared to other parties.
Which is why Russia is puppeteering Germany’s far-right to view them as a kind of combined enemy, you often hear them use the term “Linksgrunversifft” / “left-green-soiled” towards people who hold the wrong opinions.
Didn’t they push a similar joined term in America 2016? I remember encountering the words “liberal elite” a lot, probably an attempt to redirect the resentment against the uppity conservative establishment towards liberals instead. I guess it worked.
The US Greens are largely subsidized by Republican funders, and Green presidential candidates have been dinner guests of Putin. The US Greens aren’t an independent environmentalist party but are a GOP stalking horse.
From what I understand, Trump alone could not make the US leave NATO. And despite how despicable some Republicans are, I think he’s made enough enemies within his own party to never see that actually happen.
For those that want to break everything, this is a feature, not a bug. The magats would rather send the world into the toilet rather than not be able to “own the libs” (and women, and POC, and LGBTQ and immigrants, and anyone with one iota more education than them, etc.).
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
Perhaps the Americans leaving NATO turns out to be the thing that prevents WW3. We will only know this if WW3 starts in a similar manner to WW1 with all the alliances.
Thinking the U.S. leaving NATO might stop World War III is kind of missing the point. Back in World War I, yeah, complex alliances dragged everyone into a mess. But NATO? It’s a whole different beast. It’s all about keeping peace by making it clear that messing with one member is like picking a fight with the whole gang. It’s more of a big, collective “back off” sign to anyone thinking of starting trouble.The U.S. being part of NATO actually helps keep things calm. It’s like having a really strong friend in the neighborhood who helps make sure nobody starts any fights. So, saying the U.S. leaving NATO could prevent a global war is kinda backwards. NATO’s there to prevent wars, not start them.
Military alliances factored into the world war because there were two of them of similar strength and size. There is no military alliance that is of similar strength to NATO that would be reasonably able to pick a fight with it. About CSTO or a potential Russia-China alliance, if they mattered and worked, there’d be Chinese or Kyrgyz or whatever troops in Ukraine.
If NATO is severely weakened or dissolved, that levels the playing field a bit more. Especially since not all NATO members are nuclear powers. Combining that with the batshit warmongering leadership of some countries, that would cause an escalation in the war in Europe.
You ever consider why China is building aircraft carriers now, when previously they had no need, as their interests were limited to places they could access by land?
I guess they want to have their own adventures bombing far away places like the US.
Aside all the political aspects and people dying, the aviation nerd in me is actually super interested in what Chinese naval aviation will look like once they get to where they want to be. Aren’t they using their own versions of the Su-33 right now? J-15 is it? The 5th gen fighter they are using looks far too heavy to do ski jumps.
In order to do that Trump would need a MAGA-Republican majority in the US Senate as well, due to a recently bi-partisan enacted law by Congress stating as much - thehill.com/…/4360407-congress-approves-bill-barr…
I wonder if the rest of NATO would allow this. Like, okay, the US “pulls out” and stops all their commitments to NATO. It would still be in NATO’s best interest, should Trump eventually leave office, that the US retain its membership. Create a paperwork “penalty box” that allows Trump to feel like he’s won but allow future, more sane Presidents, an easy on-ramp back into full membership.
I imagine he’d “pull us out of NATO” like he “pulled us out of NAFTA”. Which is to say he’d slap a new “America First” label on the old organization, take a few weeks off to vacation at a bunch of European golf courses, do a big signing ceremony in front of OAN handi-cams, and yell “I Made America Great Again” into the faces of anyone who thinks this is baby-tier bullshit.
Create a paperwork “penalty box” that allows Trump to feel like he’s won but allow future, more sane Presidents, an easy on-ramp back into full membership.
I think the real end-game is about goosing US military exports. Trump threatens a pull out, on the condition that all the member states boost their domestic military budgets. Then those member states buy more shit from American MIC contractors. The MIC rewards Trump with political capital. And Trump takes kickbacks in the form of club memberships and no-show jobs for his extended family.
My man loves to bluff about taking his ball and going home. And he’ll happily sign a big executive order with an oversized sharpee, proclaiming “We Aren’t In NATO Anymore!” whether or not we actually left, because it plays well with his base. But the real influence that the US has in NATO is more about Trump extending/denying France or the UK or Finland or whomever with navy and air support to hold business assets in former colonies.
Trump knows that and he knows it offers him immense leverage, given how much these other countries rely on US power projection. So he’ll very likely get a new wave of EU militarization at the enrichment of American MIC, because its the only way the other NATO states decouple their reliance on the US for “free” military support.
That said, that can backfire. Several major member states of the EU are already talking about proper remilitarization that wasn’t needed since the wall fell. There are nascent beginnings of a joint European army and a joint European MIC. Why would EU states spend more money on US stuff that it already thinks it doesn’t need, if it can just use the same money and pour it into the FCAS project for example, creating jobs and keeping money at home?
Orbán used to be a huge Trump fan, and he actually went and started spending more money on the military when the was Trump’s thing. Only it wasn’t American F-35s he got, it was a bunch of German Leopard 2A8 tanks and French Eurocopter EC725 helicopters and Norwegian NASAMS launchers. There is also a stated intent to skip 5th gen and get into the FCAS if and when that materializes.
Oh definitely. US military technology is exhaustively oversold and carry enormous overhead costs that dilute their real practical military capacity. Our new war in Yemen (much like our old war in Afghanistan) illustrate the problem neatly, as we launch $10M missiles at $100 targets and still can’t get the Gulf of Adan safe enough for traffic to resume.
Why would EU states spend more money on US stuff that it already thinks it doesn’t need
Because they’re buying a relationship with the US Military more than they are buying the hardware itself. The promise of US Aircraft Carriers and US Satellites and experienced US military leadership coming in as the primary driver of military engagement means kicking back a billion or two to keep the Americans friendly is mostly worth it.
But if the EU grows more internally coherent as a military power… yeah, that could very easily go away. We could be staring at another Great Rival in an increasingly fractured global rat race if the Europeans establish themselves as self-reliant.
Add comment