https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20260408-trump-to-discuss-leaving-nato-in-meeting-with-rutte-white-house
QuoteWashington (United States) (AFP) – US President Donald Trump will discuss the possibility of leaving NATO when he meets with the alliance's chief Mark Rutte on Wednesday, the White House said, accusing Washington's partners of "turning their back" on the American people.
Quote from: Jacob on April 08, 2026, 02:08:29 PMhttps://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20260408-trump-to-discuss-leaving-nato-in-meeting-with-rutte-white-house
QuoteWashington (United States) (AFP) – US President Donald Trump will discuss the possibility of leaving NATO when he meets with the alliance's chief Mark Rutte on Wednesday, the White House said, accusing Washington's partners of "turning their back" on the American people.
Whatever gives him the biggest rating* boost.
*viewership/attention.
Pretty sure it is illegal for Donald Trump to do that unilaterally.
But Constitutions and treaties and just scraps of paper now. So why not? Saves the Canadians and the Europeans the pain of getting rid of us.
I can hardly wait until Donald Trump gives NATO a two week ultimatum.
I dunno, seems like just another bully tactic to extort something. The Donald operates more like a don than a president.
Don Trumpione ;)
Quote from: NATO Treaty preambleThey are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. They seek to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area.
I don't see how the US fits into this.
Quote from: Valmy on April 08, 2026, 02:39:35 PMPretty sure it is illegal for Donald Trump to do that unilaterally.
But Constitutions and treaties and just scraps of paper now. So why not? Saves the Canadians and the Europeans the pain of getting rid of us.
I know Congress passed that law limiting NATO withdrawl, but that just means Trump would do it anyway and start a court/legal fight.
And even if he lost all of that (which is actually questionable if he would)...the entire enforcement mechanisms of Article 5 requires the Executive branch (through the military) to act on it. The President can simply decline to do so, and the result is the same.
Quote from: The Brain on April 08, 2026, 03:01:36 PMQuote from: NATO Treaty preambleThey are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. They seek to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area.
I don't see how the US fits into this.
Also slightly mad for an organisation that included Salazar's Portugal, various military coup regimes in Turkey and the Colonels' Greece. Was it maybe added later or amended?
Like our own documents written with the hypocrisy of chattel slavery still around, perhaps it was meant to be aspirational. :sleep:
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 08, 2026, 03:05:23 PMQuote from: The Brain on April 08, 2026, 03:01:36 PMQuote from: NATO Treaty preambleThey are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. They seek to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area.
I don't see how the US fits into this.
Also slightly mad for an organisation that included Salazar's Portugal, various military coup regimes in Turkey and the Colonels' Greece. Was it maybe added later or amended?
Nope. That was the original preamble to the original treaty in 1949. Though Turkey and Greece were not signatories yet.
Quote from: Tonitrus on April 08, 2026, 03:08:02 PMLike our own documents written with the hypocrisy of chattel slavery still around, perhaps it was meant to be aspirational. :sleep:
Yeah and I suppose that very Cold War meaning of "democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law" :lol: I feel like that language was used a lot in Latin America.
It's true that Trump can't withdraw from NATO in a legal sense--in fact even before the newer law he likely couldn't.
But what he can do is simply exercise powers as Commander-in-Chief. He can order troops out of NATO countries, he can also simply make a very public proclamation "I will not adhere to Article 5 of NATO if any NATO members are attacked."
So sure, we'd still be "legally" in the organization, but that has no real meaning after that.
Although despite the general incomprehensible decline of the British Navy and Army, NATO would still mean risking war with two nuclear armed states, and 3 of the top defense spending countries.
If the rest of the alliance stays together, the combined armed forces of Britain, France, Germany, Canada, Turkey, Poland and Italy is certainly stronger than Russia, the only real threat to the region.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 08, 2026, 03:17:58 PMIt's true that Trump can't withdraw from NATO in a legal sense--in fact even before the newer law he likely couldn't.
But what he can do is simply exercise powers as Commander-in-Chief. He can order troops out of NATO countries, he can also simply make a very public proclamation "I will not adhere to Article 5 of NATO if any NATO members are attacked."
So sure, we'd still be "legally" in the organization, but that has no real meaning after that.
Although despite the general incomprehensible decline of the British Navy and Army, NATO would still mean risking war with two nuclear armed states, and 3 of the top defense spending countries.
If the rest of the alliance stays together, the combined armed forces of Britain, France, Germany, Canada, Turkey, Poland and Italy is certainly stronger than Russia, the only real threat to the region.
Exactly. I don't see why a US exit (they're already de facto out from an Article 5 perspective) would mean the end of NATO. The NATO treaty only mentions the US for some admin.
Quote from: The Brain on April 08, 2026, 03:21:01 PMExactly. I don't see why a US exit (they're already de facto out from an Article 5 perspective) would mean the end of NATO. The NATO treaty only mentions the US for some admin.
Good point. I changed the thread title.
Trump is not forever. Tusk knows this and so far is apt at delaying.
We always act like a US administration is permanent. It really is not. How far are we from the Obama years of hope?
Trump saying he won't act on article 5 is only a possibility for 3 more years.
Does the president know that most countries will drop the rather poor JSF then? He really is great at keeping jobs in the US, isn't he? :lol:
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 08, 2026, 03:58:19 PMTrump is not forever. Tusk knows this and so far is apt at delaying.
We always act like a US administration is permanent. It really is not. How far are we from the Obama years of hope?
Trump saying he won't act on article 5 is only a possibility for 3 more years.
Trump is not forever, certainly. But the Americans who made him possible are not going anywhere. Trump is the symptom, not the disease.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 08, 2026, 04:05:39 PMQuote from: Grey Fox on April 08, 2026, 03:58:19 PMTrump is not forever. Tusk knows this and so far is apt at delaying.
We always act like a US administration is permanent. It really is not. How far are we from the Obama years of hope?
Trump saying he won't act on article 5 is only a possibility for 3 more years.
Trump is not forever, certainly. But the Americans who made him possible are not going anywhere. Trump is the symptom, not the disease.
Yes but that's not the same thing, especially in foreign diplomacy. They'll elect some crazy racist Christian again but he won't be this dumb.
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 08, 2026, 04:14:20 PMYes but that's not the same thing, especially in foreign diplomacy. They'll elect some crazy racist Christian again but he won't be this dumb.
...why must you tempt fate like this? :weep:
Trump may not last that long, but the anti-democracy clique of oligarchs are going to be around after he's no longer president.
Unfortunately, it seems anti-democracy is gaining steam to various degrees worldwide. In many places it seems like things have moved on to arguing over whose authoritarian or semi-authoritarian ideas should take over.
We let the billionaire class rule and now suffer from stagnation. I can see how China's system can be enticing.
Quote from: Valmy on April 08, 2026, 03:10:12 PMQuote from: Sheilbh on April 08, 2026, 03:05:23 PMQuote from: The Brain on April 08, 2026, 03:01:36 PMQuote from: NATO Treaty preambleThey are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. They seek to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area.
I don't see how the US fits into this.
Also slightly mad for an organisation that included Salazar's Portugal, various military coup regimes in Turkey and the Colonels' Greece. Was it maybe added later or amended?
Nope. That was the original preamble to the original treaty in 1949. Though Turkey and Greece were not signatories yet.
Portugal was a founding member as a matter of fact, and Salazar played his cards right during WWII, unlike, say, Franco, despite the opportunism of the latter.
Nordics can go back to stationing tripwire forces in Greenland.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HFa6G9YXkAAH4P-?format=jpg&name=small)
The Billionaires really want their Ice Box company town.
So not Cuba but Greenland is the next target?
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 08, 2026, 10:31:35 PMSo not Cuba but Greenland is the next target?
Maybe wait for the summer in Greenland? :hmm:
Cuba has less climate constraints.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on April 09, 2026, 07:59:24 AMCuba has less climate constraints.
True. But there's all kind of tropical diseases to be caught in these climates.
I know modern medicines does wonders, with vaccines and all, but that's not in the current philosophy of this MAHA movement at the head of the US currently. Drinking raw milk and running in the rain ain't gonna save you from every fever.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 08, 2026, 04:05:39 PMQuote from: Grey Fox on April 08, 2026, 03:58:19 PMTrump is not forever. Tusk knows this and so far is apt at delaying.
We always act like a US administration is permanent. It really is not. How far are we from the Obama years of hope?
Trump saying he won't act on article 5 is only a possibility for 3 more years.
Trump is not forever, certainly. But the Americans who made him possible are not going anywhere. Trump is the symptom, not the disease.
Yep.
My take on this is that it's more intimidation tactics. Diplomacy seems to be limited to threats or slurs these days.
The Americans I know are very nice people, perhaps much more than Europeans are in general. That is why I have such problems understanding how nice people elect such a poor leader whose only tactic is that of a real estate developer in debt: Trying to scare the shit out of people to make a deal.
Rutte has to go. And maybe next time don't put a MAGA guy in that role.
Quote from: The Brain on April 10, 2026, 05:36:58 AMRutte has to go. And maybe next time don't put a MAGA guy in that role.
Afaik, with Rutte one has to remember his words mean nothing. They're just wind and he'll pivot into whatever direction is required.
So in that regard he may be perfect to keep the thing on lifesupport until someone reasonable replaces the orange blob.
But that only works if the euros stop dawdling and build up that army. Ideally even reworking and streamlining the things so that they also get the benefits of scale.
That means some red lines will have to be crossed and 'holy houses' torn down.
In the mean time the optics of Rutte suck.
Why would someone reasonable replace the orange blob? And even if it happens, you can't be allied to a country that is on and off constantly.
The US is a write-off as an ally.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on April 10, 2026, 05:48:45 AMQuote from: The Brain on April 10, 2026, 05:36:58 AMRutte has to go. And maybe next time don't put a MAGA guy in that role.
Afaik, with Rutte one has to remember his words mean nothing. They're just wind and he'll pivot into whatever direction is required.
So in that regard he may be perfect to keep the thing on lifesupport until someone reasonable replaces the orange blob.
But that only works if the euros stop dawdling and build up that army. Ideally even reworking and streamlining the things so that they also get the benefits of scale.
That means some red lines will have to be crossed and 'holy houses' torn down.
In the mean time the optics of Rutte suck.
The optics suck, but he doesn't care about that. He's a human-shaped lubricant, which can be very effective in holding a coalition together. Just don't expect any kind of vision or long-term strategy.
Quote from: The Brain on April 10, 2026, 05:51:11 AMWhy would someone reasonable replace the orange blob? And even if it happens, you can't be allied to a country that is on and off constantly.
The US is a write-off as an ally.
Yes, for the foreseeable future
Quote from: viper37 on April 09, 2026, 03:59:07 PMQuote from: Duque de Bragança on April 09, 2026, 07:59:24 AMCuba has less climate constraints.
True. But there's all kind of tropical diseases to be caught in these climates.
I know modern medicines does wonders, with vaccines and all, but that's not in the current philosophy of this MAHA movement at the head of the US currently. Drinking raw milk and running in the rain ain't gonna save you from every fever.
I suppose you could say as well that Greenland being a very cold climate is (much) healthier than a tropical climate, as long as you are prepared for the cold. :P
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on April 10, 2026, 01:46:36 PMQuote from: viper37 on April 09, 2026, 03:59:07 PMQuote from: Duque de Bragança on April 09, 2026, 07:59:24 AMCuba has less climate constraints.
True. But there's all kind of tropical diseases to be caught in these climates.
I know modern medicines does wonders, with vaccines and all, but that's not in the current philosophy of this MAHA movement at the head of the US currently. Drinking raw milk and running in the rain ain't gonna save you from every fever.
I suppose you could say as well that Greenland being a very cold climate is (much) healthier than a tropical climate, as long as you are prepared for the cold. :P
Yes. As the Vikings explorers and their later colonizers have proven, the initial visits are alright, it's only the longer stay that is the problem :P
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 08, 2026, 03:58:19 PMTrump is not forever. Tusk knows this and so far is apt at delaying.
We always act like a US administration is permanent. It really is not. How far are we from the Obama years of hope?
Trump saying he won't act on article 5 is only a possibility for 3 more years.
Not just Tusk - all the Baltic leaders too have adopted a very similar position.
It's one of the reasons I'm less bullish about NATO's capacity without the US is that broadly speaking the leaders of countries close to Russia seem to be going out of their way to placate/work with Trump. I think there's a reason they're doing that and - as with the Polish and Baltic warnings about Russia for 25 years, dismissed by more sophisticated Chancelleries in the rest of Europe as slightly hysterical - I trust their strategic assessment of their neighbourhood.
The leaders taking a more strident stance towards Trump generally seem to be further away from Russia.
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 08, 2026, 03:58:19 PMTrump is not forever. Tusk knows this and so far is apt at delaying.
We always act like a US administration is permanent. It really is not. How far are we from the Obama years of hope?
Trump saying he won't act on article 5 is only a possibility for 3 more years.
Question Tusk and Europe should be asking is why Congress puts up with this. As President, Trump has a duty to enforce the law, and that includes the NATO treaty. His judicially made up "foreign policy" powers not actually in the constitutional text don't extend to unilaterally abrogating or ignoring sections of ratified treaties. In the specific case of NATO, the treaty itself is reinforced by federal statute, passed in 2024 and sponsored by Marco Rubio, prohibiting US presidents from attempting to withdraw from NATO without explicit congressional assent.
Yet Congress (the majority) is silent. And that should set off alarm bells that the problem goes deeper than DJT's own deep personality flaws but a much broader fecklessness and indifference in the broader American public.
I don't like it. I think NATO has been a very good arrangement for both the US and Europe and it would be very bad for the US if it weakens further. Self-interest would say I agree with the Tusk pray and wait approach. But if I were a European, I'd be making alternative plans and fast.
In fairness, Tusk (and the PiS government before him) are making alternative plans. Poland's working to get their army to 500,000 and has increased defence spending from about 2% in 2022 to about 5% now, including long-term commitments with many partners (Korean, French, British etc companies) to build factories in Poland (and worth noting this started in 2022 - the wake-up call for Poland to increase its defence was Russia's invasion not the vagaries of American domestic politics).
If all of Europe was behaving like Poland I'd be a lot more relaxed about everything. I'm more worried by the bits of Europe that are already post-American while still spending very little on defence, or are talking a lot about alternative plans but not actually making them.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on Today at 03:15:05 PMQuote from: Grey Fox on April 08, 2026, 03:58:19 PMTrump is not forever. Tusk knows this and so far is apt at delaying.
We always act like a US administration is permanent. It really is not. How far are we from the Obama years of hope?
Trump saying he won't act on article 5 is only a possibility for 3 more years.
Question Tusk and Europe should be asking is why Congress puts up with this. As President, Trump has a duty to enforce the law, and that includes the NATO treaty. His judicially made up "foreign policy" powers not actually in the constitutional text don't extend to unilaterally abrogating or ignoring sections of ratified treaties. In the specific case of NATO, the treaty itself is reinforced by federal statute, passed in 2024 and sponsored by Marco Rubio, prohibiting US presidents from attempting to withdraw from NATO without explicit congressional assent.
Yet Congress (the majority) is silent. And that should set off alarm bells that the problem goes deeper than DJT's own deep personality flaws but a much broader fecklessness and indifference in the broader American public.
I am not sure that is a very good or effective question to ask. Even if the Democrats win majorities in the House and Senate, they would still not be able to compel the President to enforce the NATO treaty or utilize and deploy the military. They can pass lots of bills complaining about it, as could the courts could make rulings, but they cannot force the Commander in Chief to act. They could potentially do the reverse...passing War Powers acts to defund undesirable military action...but there is zero way to compel positive military action.
Only with a 2/3rds majority in the Senate could they "enforce" it by impeachment. And even then, ok, let's say you manage to impeach Trump (let's say the House passes it on majority vote, and the GOP in the Senate is fed up enough to convict him)...you would probably need to follow that on with impeaching Vance as well, because I think he is just as likely to ignore the NATO obligation.
I understand why they may be concerned about the broader American public (which is almost always non-caring when it comes to robust or effective foreign policy)...but even a highly sympathetic Congress would have almost no value in this case.
Additionally wasn't there fairly recent polling (going to hunt for it now) that the "broader European public" is not much interested in actually supporting the NATO treaty either? Outside their own country being attacked...
I think is that some expect Congress persons to also discuss things and not disappear. But the American Congress hasn't been a space for actual speeches in a wild and that hurts the opposition.
Quote from: Tonitrus on Today at 06:07:58 PMAdditionally wasn't there fairly recent polling (going to hunt for it now) that the "broader European public" is not much interested in actually supporting the NATO treaty either? Outside their own country being attacked...
Better than I thought (if one would trust NATO's own polling)...I may have been thinking of pre-Ukraine war polling:
https://www.nato.int/content/dam/nato/webready/documents/public-opinion/240705-pre-summit-polling-results-en.pdf
But even here the US is right on par with Canada in the middle of the pack. Legbiter's people are not very supportive. :P
Quote from: Grey Fox on Today at 06:10:44 PMI think is that some expect Congress persons to also discuss things and not disappear. But the American Congress hasn't been a space for actual speeches in a wild and that hurts the opposition.
Well, that is true. Most Congressional speeches these days are Senators/Congressman talking to themselves and a camera in the middle of the night to an empty room all for the purpose of putting their dribble into the Congressional Record for some unknown reason.
But to be fair...I've seen that often in the UK House of Commons as well...
Yeah the idea that there is going to be intense debates over important legal, constitutional, and policy issues in the halls of Congress is just dead wrong.
While wrong, I think it's expected.
Quote from: Tonitrus on Today at 06:27:44 PMWell, that is true. Most Congressional speeches these days are Senators/Congressman talking to themselves and a camera in the middle of the night to an empty room all for the purpose of putting their dribble into the Congressional Record for some unknown reason.
But to be fair...I've seen that often in the UK House of Commons as well...
Yeah I don't think that's necessarily the role of Congress either - I think the bigger problem is they're just not doing their job. I've said before but I think the fact that the US has a constitutional branch of government MIA is a big cause of many problems. I'm not sure Congress has ever been the place of great speeches or debates - I don't think that's its role historically - but it has in the past been a seat of great power and its abidcated that. I listen to a podcast on movies from the 90s where they start every episode with looking at the front page of the NYT on the day of release - and even then, in the 90s, it is astonishing how much more Representatives and (especially) Senators mattered.
Nowadays lots of MPs are actually just reading for their social media channels so if you actually watch parliament it's not good. Lots of non-sequiturs and actually questions or arguments getting repeated to be clipped up for social media, lots of MPs now reading their contributions (an alarming number of which I suspect are now AI generated - which I think should result in an immediate by-election) - and also they've moved to more family friendly hours which means the Commons no longer really controls its own timetable (also Speakers are more likely to grant urgent questions etc filling the time they have) to just let a debate run as long as it needs which leads to the Speaker imposing time limits. So you get the slightly absurd situation of an important issue, like the withdrawal from Afghanistan with the Speaker limiting everyone to two minutes, then one minute, then thirty seconds.
There are times when it "rises to the occasion" but it's normally one or two speakers sort of compelling attention - and often because the occasion sort of demands someone rise to it.
It could get worse actually. I've seen 2024 intake MPs complain that they have to sit in the chamber to be called in a debate which gets in the way of them doing important emails/constituency work and they would like to move to getting appointed speaking slots (like the US Congress). There's also proposals to move to fully remote voting. None of which sounds good to me - I think it's kind of missing the point of the purpose of a legislature.