• solomon42069@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 days ago

    Easy solution - new defence pact without USA and invite everyone else the Trumpian USA stiffed on defence like Australia.

    We (Australia) are already in Eurovision so a defence pact with Europe (and the UK lol) would make sense!

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 days ago

      Why? Are you worried the US is going to pull everyone into war or something?

      My understanding is that people are annoyed at US actions outside of NATO, like positions WRT NATO, Trump/Musk nonsense domestically, etc. But are they worried the US won’t defend if a NATO country is attacked?

      I understand issues with the US as a trade partner, but you really want the biggest military on your side in a defensive pact.

      • optional@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 days ago

        Haven’t you watched the news in the last 5 weeks? How can you expect the USA to defend a NATO country while they themselves are the aggressor?

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 days ago

          Wait, has the US attacked someone in the last 5 weeks? From what I can tell, it’s just Trump doing Trump things, flapping his gums and trying to get NATO countries to honor their agreements. I’m not a fan of Trump, but I haven’t seen any evidence of the US actually attacking anyone, which is surprising because we usually have a war or two going on at all times.

          • optional@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            9 days ago

            He has threatened Canada that they’ll be the 51. US-State, he has threatened Denmark by saying he’ll “liberate” Greenland. A war of aggression usually doesn’t directly start by invading it, but with unrealisable claims and wrong accusations:

            • “Hand over Danzig” and “your troops are violating our border, we’re just protecting our border” before invading Poland in 1939
            • “Hand over these (non-existent) WMDs” and “Sadam was involved in 9/11, we’re just fighting terrorism” in 2003
            • “Crimea and Donbas shall be Russian” and “The government in Kyiv are Nazis, we’re just protecting the Russian minority” in 2014
            • “Canada shall be the 51. US state” and “Canadians are smuggling drugs into our country, we’re just protecting our border” in 2025
            • “We’re going to have Greenland” and “It’s for the protection of the free world, we’re just providing freedom to the Greenlanders” in 2025

            That’s how you talk to countries you’re planning to invade and not to countries you’re planning to protect from invasion.

            • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              9 days ago

              That’s also how you talk to countries you’re trying to terrify into giving you greater concessions. The “art of the deal” is terrifying the other party with impossible demands and then negotiating down from there to something realistic, letting them think they avoided disaster. It creates an environment of fear and uncertainty, which forces his opponents to be cautious and fearful.

              I suppose there’s no way to know if he’s bluffing or if he’s being sincere, but that’s the point. He wants people to be afraid.