629
NATO will not join US–Israel campaign, Rutte says
(tvpworld.com)
Well duh, it's a defensive alliance.
Tell that to the people of yugoslavia in 1999
That was a humanitarian intervention to STOP a genocide.
I bet most were happy that the Serbians were reigned in. Even many Serbians.
NATO has intervened in situations where they had a UN mandate.
Well… I think a lot of people in Iran are also happy about these strikes.
But that does not change the fact that Nato is clearly not only defensive.
I don’t get the downvotes, you are correct. The OP’s comment that NATO only intervenes defensively is clearly wrong.
Should they intervene here? No, definitely not because this is a stupid, stupid war, and that’s reason enough.
I think it’s my mistake for wording my comment in such a way that it sounds like I think the intervention in Yugoslavia was bad. That was not the point I was making, but I see how it could be interpreted as such.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
NATO has intervened in situations where they had a UN mandate.
Ah, so it's not a defensive alliance. Thanks for confirming.
No it is, since not every member participated.
The whole operation was voluntary. The only reason it gets a NATO sticker is because only NATO members participated.
If it was an actual NATO operation, it would have been mandatory for all 32 nations. Not just the 13 that actually intervened.
load more comments
(4 replies)
Depends what your definition of defence is though, doesn't it. NATO could just be considered to be defence of peace in which case yeah you could have a mandate to intervene in certain situations and it would still be in defensive peace.
I think you're trying to make a distinction without a purpose.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
I did, they were in my class growing up in Canada, they said thanks. Have you talked to any of those people who fled that genocide?
Not my point at all. I did in no way say it was unjustified. I was just saying it was offensive and thus contradicted what the original comment said.
You know, I don't actually know how that unfolded. Was it NATO itself, or just all the NATO members? I kind of assumed it was like Iraq.
Yea.. poor Yugoslavia that already faced three UN resolutions concluding their violation of basic human rights wasn't allowed to go on with their ethnic cleansing. Shocking! /s
Correct me if I’m wrong. But the UN didn’t mandate the intervention, right? Therefore nato was in violation of international law.
But that’s besides the point. I commented under a commenting claiming Nato is purely defensive. Which it clearly isn’t.
But the UN didn’t mandate the intervention, right?
Pretty hard to get the UN to mandate anything substantial if there's almost always a veto power protecting its pawns...
load more comments
(52 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
At least in that circumstance there were already active hostilities that did threaten to flood NATO countries with Albanian refugees trying to escape ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, and a strong possibility that the conflict would expand into NATO states.
In this war with Iran there is nothing but Israeli bloodthirst and an American President who desperately needs a distraction and something to regroup his base.
I guess? But where does nato draw the line? Does it bomb a country because it can possibly attack a nato memberstate in 30 years?
How do you get there from what was an ongoing genocide and an immanent threat? Has NATO ever bombed a country because they might attack in 30 years? There is your answer.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(11 replies)
So far the only country I'm not appalled by their reaction is Spain. The rest are all so luke warm or plain wtf. Specially Germany. I feel like since WW1 they have an subscribtion on standing on the wrong side. Today they called in Iranian diplomats to tell them they should adhere to the rules of war and not bomb civilians.
Meanwhile Israel started off the war by bombing a primary school & hospital. But that's cool for the German goverment since Israel did not confirm they did it. So they are obviously adhering ho the rules of war.
Here's the problem, the second we (Germans) criticize Israel in any shape or form, they start calling us Nazis again. The vast majority of Germans disagree with war to solve problems.
Better to be called a Nazi than to aid a Nazi.
let them call you nazis. criticize them and let people see the truth and whether it is you or them that is the nazi.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
The UK as shit as we are and as horrible as Starmer is have also refused to partake. Though we did send a ship to protect our base so who knows, but we don’t want to be dragged into another illegal war.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Dutchie here, before Mark Rutte was SG of NATO he was our PM for over a decade where he earned the nickname Teflon Mark: no scandal sticks, no political storm makes him wet. Why? Because he can say anything in a way that makes you believe he is telling the truth. Before you know it this man has no active memory of any meeting that was about not-joining and suddenly 'remember' a meeting about joining. If you do not want your country participating in this war, do not sit back and relax because this guy says it won't happen. He is not all bad, but i'd advise anyone (except Trump) to not take what he says too serious.
It's a tragedy other countries provide even passive support, and continue to support Israel even after Gaza genocide, which still continues, even if it's not during or for this campaign specifically. Years of human rights and international law violations, and there's no strong opposition or distancing. That initiative is hard to swallow.
Thank you Rutte.
Dear Donald, please now apply the same trade war to all NATO nations as you have to Spain. I dare ya'.
That goes without saying, given that this is a completely illegal war of aggression. It is inconceivable that the EU is nevertheless acting as if these were allies. This war is a crime and serves to distract from further crimes: in the US, from the fact that the country is run by a fascist pedophile ring, and in Israel, from genocidal fascists whose agent, Epstein, made all this possible in the first place.
It is outrageous that the EU has not withdrawn from NATO and continues to supply weapons to the monsters in Israel.
Most insane to me is that, it’s EU who will have to deal with humanitarian crisis and spend more money supporting Ukraine to offset Russia’s oil profits from increasing prices.
Call me crazy but US seems to have more interest in supporting Russia’s war and destabilizing EU than destroying Iran’s regime. As part of this operation at least
load more comments
(2 replies)
Withdrawing from NATO doesn't make sense. It would probably take upwards of 20-30 years to replace what would be lost by doing that. It's not worth it. I 100% agree with everything else you stated, though.
I understand your point, but I disagree. I think NATO effectively no longer exists anyway - better to get rid of it sooner rather than later. The US recently threatened a war of aggression against one of its founding members. Now would be the right time to punish the geopolitical excesses of the criminal US-regime by creating a new alliance. The US is only a world power because of its military apparatus, which is financed on credit.
I see no reason not to let the existing world order collapse, because it has brought nothing but misery since the end of World War II.
Edit: There can no longer be any talk of a community of values with the US, as the regime there proves on a daily basis. It is more than unlikely that this will change, as the US population remains passive and will therefore soon be living in a dictatorship that will no longer pretend to be any different from oligarchies such as Russia. Therefore, I think, it makes little difference to orient oneself towards China instead.
I think NATO effectively no longer exists anyway - better to get rid of it sooner rather than later.
De facto NATO is dead, because the US - it's most powerful member - can no longer be trusted. I hope the political leaders of all other Member States see this.
But that doesn't mean it no longer any value. It's main goal has become deterrence, and Russia and China still need to be deterred.
because it has brought nothing but misery since the end of World War II.
This is totally false, you can argue it has brought misery but you cannot say it didn't bring any good.
The 80 years before it's creation (and the creation of the UN) have been much more violent than the 80 years since. Sure Asia and the Global South haven't shared in the peace it brought, but it's not like the west had brought peace there before.
There might be a better future without Nato, but i don't think the world as a whole would've been better off if Nato never existed in the first place. The Sovjet union would probably still be there for example, and except for the ruling class that was not a nice place to live in.
I see no reason not to let the existing world order collapse, because it has brought nothing but misery since the end of World War II.
How can you say that when the whole point of the existing world order was to prevent another World War II, which they have been successful at? There haven't been any wars with as many lives lost as that one ever since, largely in part due to the fact that every time someone looked like they wanted to take over the world again, the rest of the democratic world united to force them where otherwise divided they would succeed.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
Aren't we all learning globally our governments aren't what they tell us they are?
Yes, absolutely. And that is precisely why we should see to it that all politicians who have benefited from this system are eliminated in democratic countries. For western democracies, this is basically synonymous with eliminating US lobbying and therefore includes most established politicians.
However, the democratic process for doing so is significantly hampered by the fact that social media in particular, but also legacy media is owned by billionaires. This ensures that only a minority in a given country is informed about the fact that only of a tiny fraction of the population, the richest 1%, in all Western democracies has benefited from this system while the population got exploited.
For Germany, for example, this means that under no circumstances one should vote for the AfD, because it is MAGA with the same goals and the same influential financiers - just a different brand.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
It's like they don't even want to bring around armageddon!
I'm all for a specific and localised Armageddon that takes out just Israel and the US. Sadly I don't think of Iran actually has the firepower to do that.
That is good news and i fully agree. Fighting alongside the MAGA and Israeli nutters is not worth a single EU bone. Furthermore, we have the fucking Muscovites to worry about.
Strongly hoping for someone to just bomb the US and make them stop their crimes against humanity. They have so much real state to conquer and split and govern after that..
We had that in 2001. Didn't go so well...
load more comments
(1 replies)
How dare NATO not invoke article 5 because Iran defended themselves!
Oh, sure, most EU countries allow US bases to be used but we can al be grateful NATO won't join the war...
Rutte can go and get fucked.
He is a lapdog to the USA and doesn’t protect or advocate for European interests.
I expected better from Europe but you’re all just colonialists.
load more comments
(2 replies)
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 03 Mar 2026
629 points (100.0% liked)
Europe
11249 readers
689 users here now
News and information from Europe 🇪🇺
(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)
Rules (2024-08-30)
- This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
- No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
- Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
- No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don't question the statehood of Israel.
- Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
- If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
- Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in other communities.
- Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
- No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
- Always provide context with posts: Don't post uncontextualized images or videos, and don't start discussions without giving some context first.
(This list may get expanded as necessary.)
Posts that link to the following sources will be removed
- on any topic: Al Mayadeen, brusselssignal:eu, citjourno:com, europesays:com, Breitbart, Daily Caller, Fox, GB News, geo-trends:eu, news-pravda:com, OAN, RT, sociable:co, any AI slop sites (when in doubt please look for a credible imprint/about page), change:org (for privacy reasons), archive:is,ph,today (their JS DDoS websites)
- on Middle-East topics: Al Jazeera
- on Hungary: Euronews
Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media (incl. Substack). Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com
(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)
Ban lengths, etc.
We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.
If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.
If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the admin that applied the rule (check modlog first to find who was it.)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS