this post was submitted on 29 Nov 2024
214 points (98.6% liked)

World News

39376 readers
2561 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
all 29 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Sunshine@lemmy.ca 32 points 3 weeks ago

Get them in! The nato membership could cover their currently held land.

[–] cypherpunks@lemmy.ml 30 points 3 weeks ago
[–] ilickfrogs@lemmy.world 19 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

yeah, that ain't gonna happen

[–] jlh@lemmy.jlh.name 17 points 3 weeks ago
  1. The article says that membership would apply only after the war.

  2. That rule is not an official rule and does not exist in NATO's treaty. It is a guideline set by the Obama administration to appease Putin.

NATO membership is exactly the thing Ukraine needs right now, after Russia proved that military aid to Ukraine did not prevent them from invading.

[–] jlh@lemmy.jlh.name 11 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)
[–] Empricorn@feddit.nl 23 points 3 weeks ago (6 children)

Literally against their rules. Countries are not eligible if they are fighting an active war.

[–] Serinus@lemmy.world 18 points 3 weeks ago

Theoretically, the idea would be that the joining of NATO would be part of ending the war. NATO could allow it if they wanted to.

[–] adarza@lemmy.ca 12 points 3 weeks ago

and literally wouldn't happen either, seeing how every member has to approve, including turkey and hungary.

[–] whotookkarl@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago

Special military operation, the aggressor denies it is a war or invasion, but I'm not sure how that affects NATO enrollment.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 7 points 3 weeks ago

Rules cab be broken if it's for the better of everyone involved.

Russia doesn't count, Russia can go fuck itself

[–] troed@fedia.io 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I assume this is "the Trump plan" so he'll say agree to it or he takes the US and goes home.

[–] saltesc@lemmy.world 8 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

NATO would allow the US to go home; it's more than strong enough. Though the US power would certainly be missed, especially since it was partly their idea to have friends against common enemies and stay safe.

The rules exist for very good reasons and are the cornerstones of what ensures NATO is a peace-keeping.defenaive pact, not a biased empirical-style alliance. Also, keep in mind that all countries of NATO are free to involve themselves in the Ukrainian War, they just cannot do so under the NATO banner. And if their homelands are attacked in retaliation, NATO will be less oblige as they fundamentally are anti-aggressor.

If Trump left NATO, the US actions will be remembered and it's unlikely they'd get back in with the same powers.

[–] troed@fedia.io 1 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Without the agreement of the US a lot of the weapon systems NATO members have cannot be used. That's the downside of using common components and platforms throughout the alliance.

[–] Womble@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The weapons "cant be used" in the diplomatic sense, it not like the bombs phone up the pentegon to ask permission to be used. If we're talking about the US ripping up all its commitments I think other countries might be less inclined to pay attention to those.

[–] troed@fedia.io 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

... which would cause Trump to cancel trade most certainly. I'm a citizen of a European Nato member and I don't believe we can take that risk.

[–] Womble@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago

Probably yes, but if its at the point of European NATO having to fight directly that's likely a second order consideration.

[–] chronicledmonocle@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

That's literally the opposite purpose of having common munitions.

[–] troed@fedia.io 1 points 3 weeks ago

Yeah. We've learnt a lot from how countries have acted when we've tried giving weapons and munitions to Ukraine the last few years.

The Swedish Gripen airplanes are still not in Ukraine. It's not due to Sweden or Ukraine ...

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

Did you read the article?

[–] mangaskahn@lemmy.world 11 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Accession to NATO usually requires border disputes to be resolved. Last I knew Canada, the US and Turkey were also standing in the way.

[–] MutilationWave@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Hungary as well. Not to downplay US and Canada bullshit, but Hungary and Turkey, being quasi autocracies themselves, have really been fucking up attempts to make countries safer from Russian aggression.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I'd happily trade out Hungary and turkey for Ukraine, any day. Ukraine actually wants a better country for its citizens, those other two just want more power for their dictators

[–] MutilationWave@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

Agreed. But I don't want the people of Hungary to be left out in the cold to future Russian aggression. They know better than to fuck with Turkey. But without either sharing a border with Russia, war is unlikely.

I think the solution is to change the rules on voting. NATO (and the EU for that matter) has too many members to keep going on the universal acceptance thing. The governments of Hungary and Turkey are going fascist. More countries could in the future with the worldwide rise of fascism.

I'm so tired of reading about Turkey or Hungary holding up something good.

[–] jlh@lemmy.jlh.name 3 points 3 weeks ago

That rule is not an official rule and does not exist in NATO's treaty. It is a guideline set by the Obama administration to appease Putin.

Those countries need to realize that they need to let Ukraine into NATO if they want the war to end, and for Ukraine to not consider building nuclear weapons for their defense.

[–] Sunshine@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] Albbi@lemmy.ca 11 points 3 weeks ago

From https://euromaidanpress.com/2024/10/31/canadian-foreign-minister-joly-says-canada-backs-ukraines-path-to-nato-membership/

Canada supports extending an invitation to Ukraine to join NATO and ultimately granting it full membership, Canadian Foreign Minister Mélanie Joly said in Montreal, according to Ukrinform.

Not sure why this guy said Canada is standing in the way of membership.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 18 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Yes, more yes, and absolute yes

[–] HootinNHollerin@lemmy.world 8 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

They fucking earned it ya goddamn pussies