Ironic as the only ones that invoked Article 5 of NATO has been the USA. Every other member has solved their problems on their own.
post
Agree with the title but downvote for unreliable source website. Here's the real article they copy pasted from Reuters.
Funny that people say it would dissolve. NATO should stay intact after the US invasion. The alliance would just kick the US out.
Personally the UN should kick the United States out if they do invade. Then the UN needs to unite against the rogue United States. Sell all bonds and move their currency base. Wouldn't be pretty, but fighting the United States with conventional weapons won't end well. Crushing our economy and cutting trade is the real weapons that should be used.
It seems like there is no mechanism to kick a country out like that. What's more likely is that NATO will be de facto dissolved immediately, but this doesn't stop allied countries from working together anyway. If the Trump administration thinks that NATO is the only thing holding alliances together, I think they will be uncomfortably surprised.
Personally I think the real decision makers in the Trump administration actually want war, or at the very least don't care if they get it. We should just cut them off from everything. Make them react. I'm sick of playing the game. Just shit or get off the pot.
What's the difference between kicking a country out of NATO vs all the other countries just saying, ok NATO2, same members minus one?
NATO2
NA2 is right there
Supply chains would be the biggest issue, methinks. Gotta figure out what hardware you need to adopt, maintaining the stuff you already have without American dictation, and so on.
If NATO was dissolved, Europe would get rid of all those US bases on European soil (Italy alone has 9 US bases, IIRC). That would be fun.
But still, I wish the US would get rid of Trump instead.
I believe the good Americans will overcome. I love seeing pissed off Americans showing up to the fight in increasing numbers. I think too many of them still believe that the midterms are going to save them, or that they can rely on legal or democratic systems that have been systematically undermined.
But I see that the Trump administration does not make any decisions to try and grow their support at all. They are moving too fast and too aggressively, probably because they need to destroy the democratic institutions in less than 2 years, so they are pulling out all the stops. They learned from the first term and they believe they have to move faster but that speed is also working against them, because it doesn't allow breathing space during which the electorate can be propagandized and during which they can forget. If they move fast their opposition will learn to move fast as well.
Crushing our economy and cutting trade is the real weapons that should be used
Just stop trade, we don't make anything here we use directly. If we do try to make things here, you end up with smarter every day's $100 grill scraper.
In a couple of weeks target/walmart will be empty
immediately all fruit/veggies in the winter will increase in price 10 fold.
We're already on the edge of a recession.
not all. make it so that it can still be worse for them if the need arises. useful for negotiations
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think an issue with that is that there isn't a mechanism for kicking a country out; the US would have to choose to leave. So more likely the allied nations would have to reform a new agreement which has its own red tape.
Technically yes. A lot of international coalitions are built without mechanism to exclude anyone and that's why Russia still has a seat on UN security council. With NATO that would be somewhat simple at least on agreement level, just have everyone to join NATOv2 and resign from current NATO and continue work without US. In practise it's obviously "a bit" more complicated to arrange command and supply chains and whatever, but it's still absolutely doable if member countries really want to.
The alliance would just kick the US out.
The alliance was created to guarantee US hegemony over Europe. It's predicated on dozens of US bases, US administered logistics routes, US contractors, US arms dealers, US surveillance.
You can't remove the US any more than you can tear out your own heart.
Europe will need to completely retrofit how it handles internal security. And - especially after Brexit - I just don't see the necessary level of cohesion between the members, absent a totalitarian hegemon like the Americans forcing Europeans together.
I think there's a pretty good case to be made that NATO would be effectively dissolved if the United States attacked Greenland.
the attack would likely be tolerated by the other NATO members, and so the agreement would no longer have meaning.
Such is the point. There's a reason Donnie started his first term so aggressively picking fights with Canada and Norway. Fulfilling Putin's wish.
Also diverts attention from Ukraine.
It really does look like it. Big Oligarchy (Putin among them) saw our supposed "shining city on a hill" and paid their boy to set that city on fire, sabotage its foundations, and scare away the populace.
Assets are much cheaper, and less uppity, in times of chaos.
Not sure where you get the feeling that the attack would be tolerated by the EU or Canada. What does tolerated mean to you?
Speaking as a Canadian and repeating a comment from a few days ago that was in a different context.
If Trump/US invaded Greenland.
Pollievre (leader of Conservative party) - "yes Daddy invade them!"
Carney (leader of Liberal party & Canadian Government currently) - "Canada is alarmed by these actions and will continue to work collaboratively with its international partners to find a solution."
We all know the Liberal response is the better one but it still means absolutely jack shit.
I happen to think you're wrong. It would be political suicide. Carney has been working feverishly to diversify, and he would recognize that the majority of Canadians are done with the US. We either act decisively at Greenland, or we are finished. And if the people decide on that policy, it doesn't really matter what the PM wants to do.
I'm ready to sacrifice, because this is existential for us.
I agree with you on what we'll hear, but I second the other comment: besides the speeches, Carney will move Canada further away from the US.
He started doing so without saying it too loudly. Only an idiot would not see it. The good thing is only one idiot needs to be fooled.
To escalate, he has multiple levers at his disposal: the everlasting hesitation between F35 and Gripen purchase, the tariffs on Chinese EV (if they were repelled, US car makers could be driven out of Canada's market within just a few years). And of course dumping US bonds, but that would hurt Canada too.
How can Canada move away from the US? Our economies are heavily integrated we're eachother's biggest trading partners.
Canada makes parts for US cars, thats the justification used to follow US tariffs on chinese EVs, what hurts our big 4 hurts your factories.
Militarily its even worse. Unless you imagine Canada throwing out all the weapons systems which depend on US manufacturing and buying European(where they exist), Chinese, and Russian(the US would probably start pirating your cargo ships) systems instead, Canada's options are be a part if America's military force or not have modern weapons.
Trump is actively trying to kill Canada's car industry. So if China is willing to do so, Canada should lift the tariffs on their EVs in exchange for a quota of cars or components made in Canada.
Long term, it is probably a better strategy as US car makers are falling so much behind on EVs they could go down in the coming years, especially if they hang on petro-cars.
As for the military, it's never too late to start doing the right thing and diversify its sourcing. No more 100% US by default, and require guarantees on supply and independence.
Europe and other countries have very good and modern equipments also, mind you.
Europe is in the same situation, having depended on America for core systems like modern jets and CIC. The only thing they have going is it would be much more difficult to occupy them beyond what their leaders already agree to.
If yall did start economicly decoupling, buying Chinese hardware, and training everyone to wage an asymetric war a la Finland, the calculus for the people who want Canada to remain a US vassal shifts to "OK, we can accept a hostile state on our border, or we can have a 3 day special operation and drive right to Kiev~~~~TorontoOttawa and be welcomed as liberators. And the longer we wait, the more difficult option 2 will be."
While helping dismantle the evil empire is unambiguously good for humanity, I genuinely don't think you have a better option than accept whatever yall are subject to.
Let's be clear, the US is starting it.
And when the rest of the world, like Canada, sells off their Tbonds and crashes the US economy, nationalizes US assets including patents, sells off US dollars reserves and cuts off exports - including hydro power, potash, oil, aluminum, and uranium, to name just a few from Canada - I guarantee the US will notice. Even one of these will be enough for the US to become the aggressor.
Greenland may seem minor, but where Greenland goes, Canada goes. For my country this is existential. And frankly, I can only assume you have typical American hubris if you assume the US will be allowed to do whatever they want.
Americans who enable this are entitled, spoiled, arrogant children who don't understand a) how dependent they are on the other countries, b) how a threat to their pampered asses really looks and feels, and c) that the upcoming fight for other countries is existential, and not just for more treasure. Americans are fighting and dying for more profits for their billionaires and maybe a new iPhone. They're fighting to protect a billionaire conman who fucks kids. The rest of the world is fighting for their existence. You tell me who is more motivated.
Oh it's another one of the "billionaires are causing all of this and by recognizing that I absolve myself of all responsibility and justify my indignant anger towards countries that my country is threatening" Americans.
Any more of you around?
He's really just saying that you're demonstrating the intellectual capacity of a standard Trump supporter because you apparently think all Americans are equally responsible for this.
No I don't but I'm tired of hearing Americans try to absolve themselves by pointing out the very obvious cause, as if identifying the problem of wealth inequality turns enemies into friends, or suddenly and magically means my country isn't being threatened by half of the US population. Sorry, some of them are too far gone, and no amount of enlightenment is going to change the fact that I can't trust the country that they control right now. I'm allowed to call that out and I'm allowed to be pissed.
And at the same time I'm allowed to cheer when I see angry Americans that are fighting back. I know there are good ones but I don't think the ones that play the rhetorical absolution trick are owed anything for pointing out something that we all already knew, that we had been saying for decades, and that doesn't do anything to help now.
I feel like a lot of Europe didn't even bother to condemn the Venezuela thing
It won't start WW3, as Africa nor asia will hop onto the conflict.
Global instability from a Europe-North American war would likely cause a lot of conflicts around the world. Want it or not, the whole world is dependent on eachother, and if exports from North America and Europe get unstable, they rest of the world will be hit. Just like if exports from China were to get disrupted the rest of the world would also get fucked.
An actual Europe/US war would raze the world to cinders
Why? Nobody except maybe Russia would want any part in that clusterfuck except to sell weapons, and Russia can barely take the Russian speaking part of Ukraine at the cost of significant long term growth.
An Africa without massively unequel leverage might actually develop their means of production instead of shipping gold ore and cocoa to Europe, a South America free of America might be able to assert itself instead of whatever the fuck Chile has been doing.
Again, why would Mexico, Brazil, China, India want anything to do with our suprise murder suicide?
A US-EU war would have the rest of the world staying tf away, since they have nothing at all to gain.
My question again, what does any country outside the imperial core have to gain by getting drawn in?
"It wont start ww2, its just a tiny conflict between germany and poland over Danzig"
Foreign officials making statements condemning the act, but not actually pursuing any consequences for the US. What they've been doing this whole time.
What exactly? Describe what actions the US has taken, and the milquetoast responses from the world. I'm sure they will all be equivalent to an occupation and theft of a sovereign country that belongs to the EU, as well as a signatory to NATO.
That's a fair point, this is another level. But the US spends much, much more on its military than all of Europe and Canada combined.
Their economy depends on the other countries around the world. What do you suppose happens when the countries dump TBonds and the US dollar? What happens when the agriculture industry is destroyed when the potash stops? There are so many trade dependencies that disappear.
The US has had a golden ticket and they would throw it away. No more printing money. Good luck maintaining all of that military, especially spread out all over the world.
It's frankly astonishing that the citizens of the US don't understand that they established these systems of trade and finances to benefit them and make their country rich and so they could get low priced goods and abundance, and they got spoiled by it and assumed it was all due to their greatness. But they're heavily dependent on it and it's a different world once it's gone.
The very definition of born on third and thought they hit a triple.
That would also crush EUs economy, and hurt all the wealthy/politicians. Many citizens would get angry, and probably vote the status quo out of power.
I agree that it still should be done, because the alternative would likely be worse. But, I think it's unlikely to happen because the people who benefit the most from the way things are won't willingly let it.
Complete and total cessation of trade with the US is extremely unlikely. Countries that have done worse still regularly engage in trade. Even if all of Europe stopped buying and selling with the US, Europe is 500 million people on a planet with 7 billion.
No, it still wouldn't be good for anybody and Trump and his supporters are deluded dingbats but it wouldn't isolate the US.
Actual occupation of a sovereign nation, not yet, threatening it multiple times against multiple places, yes. That should be more than enough to hit the US with sanctions or SOMETHING more than just words.
Are you Canadian?
Not surprising, as you clearly know nothing about the geopolitical situation or the stakeholders.
Do you honestly believe that Canada has no levers?
As I said, you don't understand Canada or Canadians. If Greenland is occupied, Canada will be next, and we know this.
I understand you will laugh and dismiss others, this is typical American behaviour. Complete lack of awareness.
I said Canada is not going to let it escalate to full blown war. Anything else is your own hallucinations.
Anything less than a strong reaction - including (to name just two) dumping Tbonds and cutting off exports (oil, potash, uranium, hydro power, softwood, etc) - will be unacceptable to most Canadians. If even one of those actions is taken by us, the US will be aggressive because they've set it up that way. They want to occupy Canada. They want a response and most Canadians are ready to give it to them. My family and I are ready to suffer and sacrifice. Are you?
I gather from your response you're not Canadian so you really don't know what you're talking about when it comes to my country.
Sorry to hear about the threats against your country. I'd have thought this might create allies, but it seems we have a fundamental personality impasse.
You think UK/France will nuke DC over Greenland?
No. Do you think nukes are the only option?
I don't think there is anything in the French arsenal shy of a nuclear weapon that could deter a US advance.
I also haven't seen anything to suggest the UK would oppose a US occupation of Greenland. If anything, they'd more likely offer a deal to facilitate it - especially if Parliament falls to Reform UK in the next few years
The US cannot win a protracted war with the rest of the world. They can barely occupy a country full of illiterate goat herders that look and sound nothing like them. Even in Canada they might have immediate victories but they will be in for decades of war of attrition with an enemy that looks like them, talks like them, and can either pop in and out of thousands of acres of impassable muskegs and boreal forest, or hop over the impossibly long and similarly defensible border to attack inside the US, or just hide in plain sight to act like your friend until they're not.
Unless they're planning to destroy everything and kill everyone. So I guess they need to ask themselves how they feel living in the US after all that suffering, death and destruction.
The US cannot win a protracted war with the rest of the world.
Since Its Birth the USA has only had 17 years of peace. None of those years have occurred since 1941. I don't know how else you describe "a protracted war with the rest of the world", but given the enormous economic growth over the last 85 years and the near-endless multi-theater conflicts the US has been engaged in over that period, I would say it can and it has.
Unless they’re planning to destroy everything and kill everyone.
The great thing about war is that it churns the economy. And Americans care more about economic growth than any other domestic policy. Would be a shame if everything was destroyed and everyone killed, because then we'd have nothing to enact war on in the following fiscal quarter.
Much easier to just keep the wars at a low simmer and "lose" them endlessly, while contractors and arms dealers grow fatter and happier ad infinitum.
The US has never really sacrificed in a war. They've never had any threat of invasion or hostility inside their borders. It's charming that you think what the US has done in third world countries is war. Dropping troops half way across the planet to fight underdeveloped resource rich nations that never threaten you economically or militarily is not a war. The one time one of these conflicts came home, resulting in large scale unscheduled demolition in NYC, the country went apeshit and acted as if they were in their last moments, trashed their rights and freedoms and invoked article 5 - the only time in history - so that they could spend over a decade in Afghanistan and end up leaving after cashing in the blood of their young men and women to make oil companies and defense contractors rich.
The corpulent unwashed masses in the US are lazy and addicted to their comforts. They've never had a war on their borders.
They’ve never had any threat of invasion or hostility inside their borders
Do you think a European army is going to pull a D-Day across an ocean controlled by a navy 10x larger than all their forces combined?
The logistics of d-day and the following weeks were insane, and that was like 75 miles off allied coast protected by the 2 largest navies in the world.
Not what I'm suggesting.
I am noting that the US has never had a war with a bordering country that looks and sounds like them.
And I'm also pointing out that the US has never had a war with a country that can cripple their agriculture industry, sell off Tbonds and USD and crash their economy, nationalize their strategic assets and patents, and cut off power to the northeast. Then fight a war of attrition for a generation if needed.
War has been something that most in the US only watch on Fox News.
Finally, if the US did abandon its traditional allies, I suspect those former allies would be looking a lot more friendly with China, who would then be the main beneficiary to capitalize off of the conflict.
You do realize that missiles can reach the US yes? And they don't need to be nuclear? It does not need to be boots on the ground in an organized invasion to cause enormous pain.
Do the citizens of the US really think they would be able to watch the world burn around them on Fox News and not feel any impacts?
All this for a bloated demented conman who rapes kids. Unreal.
The US has never really sacrificed in a war.
Idk about that...

Pretty much a joke that the American public sector is a trainwreck thanks to how much we've squandered invading overseas.
Plenty of Americans have suffered and died to poverty, neglect, and the hideous environmental impact of the MIC, because so much of our economy is routed into immiserating others.
Yes, this was the right response, and you are correct.
I'm not claiming any ground here at all by the way. Canada has never suffered an invasion either.
It's very easy to be flippant about the scale of suffering in WW2. The German invasion of Russia, translated to the US, would have been an invasion along the entire east coast that pushed from NYC as far in as Kansas City.
The US cannot win a protracted war with the rest of the world.
Europe is not the "rest of the world". They sit high and mighty now in judgement after raping the rest of the planet for 500 years and then culminating that in the two most destructive wars in human history and the greatest atrocity in the Holocaust. But it's also a group of countries that spend far, far less on their militaries combined than the US does.
Militarily, yes.
You're wrong, and anyway there are more than just military options.
For example there are devastating economic options. And generations-long wars of attrition and terror with neighboring countries that look like you and sound like you. The US sucks at occupation, even when they're brown people on the other side of the world. Imagine they hide in plain sight.
You planning to kill everyone?
Just stop sending us plastic shit and fresh food, once all the walmarts fold in the rural areas, the red wave will come to dc to protest emasse
...... Venezuela.
All conservatives can do is break things.
Can't build.
Only break.
Like a poorly raised child.
thats PUTIN's biggest wetdream, plus its probably vladmir telling him now is the time.
NATO is outward facing. It can't handle internal conflict.
We already tested this when Turkiye and Greece began militarizing in the Aegan Sea back in the 1970s. They've grown progressively more hostile for decades, with a number of barely averted military engagements.
The agreement would continue to have meaning with respect to external entities - African, Middle Eastern, Russian, and Chinese conflicts. But all the member states can do is roll over (or actively facilitate territory seizure) when they're threatened by their largest member
Trump claims Greenland needs to be occupied to protect against Russia and China.
Russia could be defeated in Ukraine if the US hadn't stopped helping.
And so sorry to burst your bubble Trump, but you are accelerating the inevitable Chinese ascendency, and occupying Greenland will actually drive the rest of the world to them.
Trump says a lot of things.
Most of the time what he means is "please just stop talking about the Epstein files".
I believe it's both that Trump is distracting, and he's handed over the government to Miller et al.
His brain is shrinking. He doesn't really care as long as no one finds out about the horrible shit in those files. And it must be absolutely abhorrent given that he's willing to destroy the world to prevent it from getting out.
And I think it will get out eventually, but most likely he will never face justice for it.
top 100 comments