196

NATO chief faces challenge at summit as Trump demands 'loyalty' and not just burden-sharing (apnews.com)

submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

61 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 60 points 1 month ago

“If an American president says he no longer wishes to defend the other allies and leaves a NATO summit in protest, then the NATO treaty and its security guarantee aren’t worth very much,” Stoltenberg wrote.

This is absolute bullshit, BTW. NATO leaders have a history of seriously overvaluing the necessity of the US to the alliance.

Yes, obviously, having the world's biggest military power on your side is a really good thing. But, with or without the US, NATO can still be a force for mutual defence. It's a far better thing to have than not have, and defeatist bullshit like this is just kicking the trusses out for no good reason.

[-] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 10 points 1 month ago

The issue is that the US provides a lot of logistics and supply chain support to the rest of NATO countries which makes it very difficult for them to operate without US support. It is made worse as many NATO nations are too small to meaningfully fill specialty units when they can barely provide basic infantry and armor units.

One of the reasons why France keeps pushing for an EU military is so that there is a government entity large enough to fund and pay for these specialty units. Otherwise, France would have to unfairly take on the burden of providing these capabilities itself.

[-] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Military satellites are almost entirely US right now, as well. There's a gap in AWACS and similar, but it's closing.

In theory, it should just be a matter of reorganising for the rest of NATO to do their own military logistics. We have the basic equipment and expertise needed.

[-] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

There are gaps, but those gaps can be fixed. There's a reason Saab are getting so many orders for GlobalEye.

[-] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 2 points 1 month ago

The problem is that it doesn't make sense for one country to bear the cost of developing those specialty items when you don't have a country like the US who would do it on its own anyway. There is likely going to need to be a pooling of resources to fund the construction of these items. If you're going to have to pool resources, what entity is going to be the best in receiving these resources and executing contacts to get these capabilities built?

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 8 points 1 month ago

It's because NATO was never just about mutual defense. It's part of the broader Western Bloc, which absolutely doesn't make sense without America at the helm. In the first place none of NATO's member states have had defensive problems that require anything that massive since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

[-] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 month ago

I'd suggest that you try saying this to someone in Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia or Poland, but I don't actually want you to get punched out.

[-] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 4 points 1 month ago

I mean, do you really see Russia beating countries with well armed and trained Western style militaries? Because I sure as hell don't. At worst, an "everyone west of France" alliance would absolutely wipe the floor with Russia if it came down to it. The threat Russia poses to an even somewhat united Eastern and Central Europe is highly exaggerated.

[-] StealthLizardDrop@piefed.social 9 points 1 month ago

Ukraine was a out what 45mil people vs Russia's 115ish? so roughly 1:2. But in smaller places like Latvia (1.8mil), Estonia (1.3mil), Lithuania (2.9mil). Would generally be overrun way before any western leadership would wake up from their nap.

[-] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Correct. Even with Operation Reassurance, which stations a sizeable contingent of NATO forces in all three states, the NATO assumption is that the Baltics will be largely overrun by any Russian attack before reinforcements can arrive. The strategic goals of the operation are a) to slow any Russian incursion down, and b) to ensure that an attack on any Baltic state would be a direct engagement with a large portion of NATO militaries, thus ensuring that it would constitute an article 5 trigger. As the name suggests, it's more about reassurance - "We stand with these people and will fight to defend them" - than it is about actually stopping a Russian attack.

Edit: As of very recently this is no longer true. See below.

[-] someguy3@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

NATO assumption is that the Baltics will be largely overrun

That WAS (past tense) the assumption. After Russia's showing in Ukraine, both the ineptitude and the atrocities, you can be certain they're planning on defending the Baltics from the start.

[-] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 month ago

So, apparently you are actually correct, although the change in posture is much more recent than you think. As in, within the last few weeks to months.

I will not be saying more on this because I'll get people in trouble if I do.

[-] someguy3@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I have no idea if that is the official policy, in any case official policy lags far after ideas come around. After Russia failed to take Ukraine in 3 days, you can rest assured discussions started pretty quickly about holding on to the Baltics. Nothing top secret about that, you can just think it through.

[-] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 month ago

I have no idea if that is the official policy

That's OK. I do.

Like I said, you're right, though the change was recent enough that I hadn't been aware of it until I double checked.

You're wrong about the reasons why the posture changed, but I really can't get into that.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] FaceDeer@fedia.io 3 points 1 month ago

Yeah. It's no longer okay to have a plan that says it's okay if Russia takes some territory, we'll just take it back a little later. We've now seen what happens to the people living in territory that happens to.

[-] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 4 points 1 month ago

Sure, but those places would be in some kind of military alliance anyway, the Treaty of Brussels being the most obvious candidate. It's also important to remember that they'd be overrun anyway; what's keeping them safe is the threat of retaliation by the rest of NATO, but even at worst Central and Eastern Europe would be more than enough to provide that threat on their own. My point isn't that a defensive alliance (mostly against Russia) is unnecessary, but that NATO is way, way too big to be only that. Countries like Spain and Britain aren't part of NATO for mutual defense, because there's nothing to defend them from.

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

You really need to look at WW2 history and the reason for NATO. Before WW2 every small country thought they could declare neutrality and sit out the next war: Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, etc. And how did that turn out? Germany just picked them off one by one. Even the countries that tied to engage like Poland and Czechoslovkia were picked off one by one (or served up on a platter).

Read: This disjointed approach did not work at all. The solution? Get a defence alliance that actually came to everyone's defence. And the earlier the better, countries like Spain and Britain are off fighting the war with functioning allies (yes even the small ones) and with control of the map rather than waiting for Russia to be at their doorstep. Think through WW2, would it have been better or worse for the allies if Norway and Denmark didn't fall? It would have been a fuckton easier. Half the reason for NATO is to get the small countries in, not run over one by one, and contributing.

[-] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 1 points 1 month ago

That's a great example, and it illustrates clearly my point here: Russia aside, the era of intra-European wars of conquest is over. Germany isn't going to declare a thousand years Reich over Poland, and neither will Italy pick more fights with the Balkans, at least for a generation or two. This is a result of European integration and has nothing to do with NATO per se. So really the only military threat to the Pax Americana in Europe is Russia, which as I said don't require anything as big as NATO to stop it, so the question becomes "what's in it for (for example) Britain."

This leads us to my other point: Britain and France didn't declare war in WWII because Germany was coming for them. Not that they shouldn't have intervened, but that what they did was an intervention; they didn't want Germany to have hegemony over continental Europe and so they declared war. The existence of the Allies wasn't defensive. Similarly, any war Britain fights with Russia would be offensive, not defensive, because there's no plausible reality where Russia tries to cross the English Channel. British participation in such a conflict would be to protect a status quo that serves its interests, not to preemptively defend British soil. This means it'd be wrong to say British is in NATO for defensive reasons; its membership in NATO is both unnecessary for its not-quite-stated goal (defending against Russian aggression) and this goal wouldn't be any more defensive than America declaring the Gulf War on Iraq. There's a lot more mutual back scratching to keep states not directly threatened by Russia in the alliance than just mutual defense, even if we assume that NATO's primary goal is defending member states (which is certainly arguable considering NATO hasn't conducted a defensive operation in its entire history).

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] FaceDeer@fedia.io 2 points 1 month ago

And even if small places could survive an invasion attempt by Russia, it would still have an immense cost in lives and destruction. Why not prevent that in the first place?

[-] mrdown@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 month ago

I suggest you to say this to Libyan. It was a block created by imperialist to fight the ussr imperialism. I do not believe in dissolving Nato but rather making it a readl defense organization independent of the usa and not being ally with israel

[-] someguy3@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

none of NATO's member states have had defensive problems

Why do we need vaccines? Everyone vaccinated never got sick.

[-] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 5 points 1 month ago

I mean, who's gonna fuck with Spain? France? Britain? Germany? Italy? Canada? Many countries in NATO are safe from foreign aggression for decades to come, NATO or no NATO. If so many of the major members in the defensive alliance don't need defending, then it's probably not a defensive alliance.

[-] FaceDeer@fedia.io 5 points 1 month ago

There have recently been direct annexation threats against Canada.

[-] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 2 points 1 month ago

Not by anybody NATO would get into a fight with.

[-] FaceDeer@fedia.io 5 points 1 month ago

The point is to make belligerents back down by raising the cost they'd have to pay by carrying through.

This particular belligerent backs down so often that there's a special acronym for it, so NATO's a perfectly good protective tool here.

load more comments (5 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] mrdown@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 month ago

Yes, obviously, having the world's biggest military power on your side is a really good thing

It is never good. You become dependent on it and countries aliance change all the time

[-] BestBouclettes@jlai.lu 2 points 1 month ago

Which is exactly what happened here

[-] Lushed_Lungfish@lemmy.ca 19 points 1 month ago

NATO literally only came together to fight exactly once. When America asked it to. The fuck more do they want?

[-] abbadon420@sh.itjust.works 14 points 1 month ago

Rutte is very good at sucking Trump's dick. He'll probably resolve this soon enough

[-] mrdown@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

He is also good at exposing state members

https://www.politico.eu/article/nato-mark-rutte-italy-us-bases-iran-war/

[-] ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago

This is all saber-rattling on the part of Krasnov and has been since day one.

If the US were going to leave NATO he'd have already started that process. With every day that goes by his own leverage at home is shrinking, while Ukraine still has many supporters in positions of power, meaning that if Krasnov really did want to pull the US out of NATO, it is becoming politically harder and harder to do so.

Additionally, being in NATO is also protective for the US, and this is not without value given as many wars as this fucker has already begun on a whim: somebody somewhere might want to hit back, and remaining in NATO helps deter that to some extent.

So instead, Krasnov just keeps threatening and not doing, even as his own position gets weaker and weaker.

Compare and contrast this with Russia. Saber-rattling is high on the list of Putin's methodology of controlling his nearest neighbors and always has been, but the US has never had to, and why would it?

The simple fact is that the US can't leave NATO for as long as Krasnov is Putin's puppet, because keeping Ukraine OUT of NATO is far more important to Putin than any other consideration.

The second the US leaves NATO is the second the US can no longer veto Ukraine's admission.

So who benefits by all this threatening and not doing? Putin. Krasnov got another phone call and here we are again.

[-] Faithless@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago

Time to throw the US out. They are a cancer

[-] echodot@feddit.uk 2 points 1 month ago

I think it's still better to have them in pissing out, than have them out pissing in. Especially because Trump would take it personally like he takes everything.

Anyway eventually Trump is going to be going to be gone one way or another and then maybe the US will elect someone sane.

[-] weaselsrippedmyflesh@piefed.social 10 points 1 month ago

Your move, Rutte. Gonna cup the balls while you gargle the knob, this time? Or are you gonna grow a spine and rip the band-aid?

[-] frongt@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 month ago

Ripping a bandage off something still in progress is a horrible idea. The rest of NATO doesn't have the capability to replace the US yet.

[-] weaselsrippedmyflesh@piefed.social 2 points 1 month ago

Granted. A better analogy, perhaps, would be to realize our bandages are already off, and to focus on dressing our own wound with the other adults in the room. Rather than begging and conceding to Trump's demands, which we know will never be met with the US keeping their end of the bargain, at this point.

[-] Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 month ago

What?

You mean that Rutte's "strategy" of having his tongue pretty much glued to Trump's ass hasn't actually resulted in Trump thinking of himself as "just another member in a group for the common good"?

That's totally unexpected!!!

[-] MonsterMonster@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Hey Rutte, reach down the front of YOUR trousers and find a pair of balls.

[-] betanumerus@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Lunatic still confuses "individual human called Donald Trump" and "nation called US, regardless of who it contains". NATO is an agreement between nations, not individual humans. "Loyalty" has no place in there.

[-] theuniqueone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 month ago

I really hope Trump collapses this imperialist alliance.

[-] TachyonTele_Esq@piefed.social 1 points 1 month ago

You're so cool and edgy. How do I raise my kid so he doesn't become you?

[-] kreskin@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

If the US loses its network of bases around the world it's screwed forever.

I do wonder if this has anything to do with the US looking to merge our military with Israel's, and moving CENTCOM to Israel. I know those arent NATO issues exactly, but I imagine they are complicated ideas in light of our NATO obligations.

[-] oyzmo@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Don't you understand!? We want you to be a branch of the great, marvellous, bestes ever US military. We want you to jump when our greatest, glorious, godly, mastermind leader says jump. This is so an honour for you!

load more comments

this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2026

196 points (100.0% liked)

World News

57648 readers

1132 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

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.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

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.