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 April 13, 2026, 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 April 13, 2026, 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 April 13, 2026, 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 April 13, 2026, 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.
Quote from: Tonitrus on April 13, 2026, 05:55:32 PMI 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.
Congress has the power to declare war . . .
This is the attitude that caused Congress, which once completely dominated American government to an extent of rendering the President a near cipher, to degenerate into a useless appendage. Congress has authority, if it chose to use it. In addition to its war power, it can control the budgets of every single department of government and it can impeach and remove any executive officer it wishes if it can summon the courage and the votes.
And the vast majority of it's members face election every 24 months. A fatal flaw in todays world.
I'm not so sure that in itself is a problem - I think that combined with the money required to run in American politics is a big problem.
I think that also affects the leadership problems in the Congressional parties and the gerontocracy - in that I think ability to raise funds for the national senate/congressional committees is a huge part of the job. And als the people who have been in politics for 40-50 years are the ones with the biggest Rolodexes of contacts they can tap up. So I think structurally the ability to raise money and the contacts to do it becomes the primary qualification for leadership roles.
Isn't what has been missing from politics a little bit of idealism and that sense of public service some of our ancestors shouldered?
of course. We're too far from our last devastating war & post-capitalism is in full swing.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 14, 2026, 07:53:08 AMCongress has the power to declare war . . .
Nobody has ever done this, and so it hasn't been legally tested as far as I know, but my read on Article I, Section 7 is the President can veto that declaration, as I think it counts as a "Resolution" under Clause 3. Overridable, of course, but I'm not sure you could get 2/3 of both chambers behind honoring Article 5 and upholding NATO in the current climate (either through agreement or the Democrats winning that many seats).
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on April 14, 2026, 11:55:38 AMI'm not sure you could get 2/3 of both chambers behind honoring Article 5 and upholding NATO in the current climate
Well that's the issue isn't it?
In 74, the Senate Republicans went to Nixon and told him he was done. And that was it.
Not long ago in years but forever in political culture.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 14, 2026, 07:53:08 AMQuote from: Tonitrus on April 13, 2026, 05:55:32 PMI 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.
Congress has the power to declare war . . .
This is the attitude that caused Congress, which once completely dominated American government to an extent of rendering the President a near cipher, to degenerate into a useless appendage. Congress has authority, if it chose to use it. In addition to its war power, it can control the budgets of every single department of government and it can impeach and remove any executive officer it wishes if it can summon the courage and the votes.
Same problem as enforcing the NATO treaty (and I was limiting my argument to just this factor). If the Congress "declared war" against say, Russia...but Trump really likes Putin, he can just ignore the declaration and not utilize the military in any way. Which brings us back around to impeachment...
And of course, as I already said...Congress can control funding, but there is no real funding cut that can be done that will really push the POTUS to exercise the military in a way he doesn't desire to.
Congress does not control funding as we have seen Congress can pass a bill creating an agency and fund it and the President can just shut it down and not fund it with no repercussions. And there doesn't seem to be anything Congress can do about it than just impeaching the President, which is an extreme step never actually done in the history of the country.
So what is the point of Congress passing a law and designating money for it, if the President can just not do it? None that I can see.
I think we're all mostly talking past each other...the core issue is that those who authored the system (arguably this can said for all liberal democratic institutions) didn't expect a totally corrupt and ethically bankrupt Executive branch to align with a party that is totally corrupt and ethically bankrupt in control of the Legislative branch.
In this case, that just leaves the weaker Judicial branch nothing to do but fight a partisan delaying action until the next elections.
Quote from: Norgy on April 14, 2026, 08:20:35 AMIsn't what has been missing from politics a little bit of idealism and that sense of public service some of our ancestors shouldered?
Maybe. I also think a return of virtue and the language of virtue in our leaders and politics would be good (I've done a 180 on this). I'm aware of how that can be weaponised and the dangers but I think it's important.
It's a very long process (and I agree with the idea that it starts with FDR and then is super-charged by the nuclear bomb) but I do wonder the abdication of Congress. I find it extraordinary. So yeah a bit of idealism and public service - but also frankly reigniting a bit of a thirst for power (republican power, not court politics) and jealousy of it in the legislature would help.
Quote from: Tonitrus on April 14, 2026, 02:21:15 PMI think we're all mostly talking past each other...the core issue is that those who authored the system (arguably this can said for all liberal democratic institutions) didn't expect a totally corrupt and ethically bankrupt Executive branch to align with a party that is totally corrupt and ethically bankrupt in control of the Legislative branch.
In this case, that just leaves the weaker Judicial branch nothing to do but fight a partisan delaying action until the next elections.
I guess we will see if Congress can do anything about it if the Dems win in November.
Interesting podcast about Iceland's defence dilemma:
In Iceland's Defence (https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m002v9f2)
QuoteIceland is one of the few nations without a national military. Its security relies on international alliances and a civilian defence force. Is this a sustainable strategy?
Iceland is an island of great beauty and even greater strategic importance. Its position in the Greenland Iceland UK Gap, the gateway between the Arctic and Atlantic oceans, makes it crucial to Nato operations in the High North.
But Iceland is one of the few nations in the world with no military of its own. A country of approximately 400,000 people, its security relies on the umbrella of protection it derives from being a founding member of NATO, a bilateral agreement with the United States signed in 1951 and a highly skilled coast guard and police force. In a climate of fracturing political alliances, is entrusting national defence so heavily on the guarantees of allies a sustainable strategy? Sandra Kanthal travelled to Reykjavik to find out.
This is almost funny.
Exclusive-Pentagon email floats suspending Spain from NATO, other steps over Iran rift, source says (https://www.internazionale.it/ultime-notizie-reuters/2026/04/24/exclusive-pentagon-email-floats-suspending-spain-from-nato-other-steps-over-iran-rift-source-says)
QuoteWASHINGTON, April 24 (Reuters) - An internal Pentagon email outlines options for the United States to punish NATO allies it believes failed to support U.S. operations in the war with Iran, including suspending Spain from the alliance and reviewing the U.S. position on Britain's claim to the Falkland Islands, a U.S. official told Reuters.
The policy options are detailed in a note expressing frustration at some allies' perceived reluctance or refusal to grant the United States access, basing and overflight rights - known as ABO - for the Iran war, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to describe the email.
The email stated that ABO is "just the absolute baseline for NATO," according to the official, who added that the options were circulating at high levels in the Pentagon.
One option in the email envisions suspending "difficult" countries from important or prestigious positions at NATO, the official said.
Asked whether it is possible to suspend a NATO ally, a NATO official said that "NATO's Founding Treaty does not foresee any provision for suspension of NATO membership".
'THEY WERE NOT THERE FOR US'
President Donald Trump has harshly criticized NATO allies for not sending their navies to help open the Strait of Hormuz, which was closed to global shipping following the start of the air war on February 28.
He has also declared he is considering withdrawing from the alliance.
"Wouldn't you if you were me?" Trump asked Reuters in an April 1 interview, in response to a question about whether the U.S. pulling out of NATO was a possibility.
But the email does not suggest that the United States do so, the official said. It also does not propose closing bases in Europe.
The official declined to say whether the options included a widely expected U.S. drawdown of some forces from Europe, however.
Asked for comment on the email, Pentagon Press Secretary Kingsley Wilson responded: "As President
Trump has said, despite everything that the United States has done for our NATO allies, they were not there for us.
"The War Department will ensure that the President has credible options to ensure that our allies are no longer a paper tiger and instead do their part. We have no further comment on any internal deliberations to that effect," Wilson said.
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION SEES EUROPEAN 'SENSE OF ENTITLEMENT'
The U.S.-Israeli war with Iran has raised serious questions about the future of the 76-year-old bloc and provoked unprecedented concern that the U.S. might not come to the aid of European allies should they be attacked, analysts and diplomats say.
Britain, France and others say that joining the U.S. naval blockade would amount to entering the war, but that they would be willing to help keep the Strait open once there was a lasting ceasefire or the conflict ended.
But Trump administration officials have stressed that NATO cannot be a one-way street.
They have expressed frustration with Spain, which has also irked the U.S. administration with its refusal to hike defence spending to 5% of GDP, adamant that it can meet its obligations with less. The United States has two important military bases in Spain: Naval Station Rota and Morón Air Base.
POLICY OPTIONS
The policy options outlined in the email would be intended to send a strong signal to NATO allies with the goal of "decreasing the sense of entitlement on the part of the Europeans," the official said, summarizing the email.
The option to suspend Spain from the alliance would have a limited effect on U.S. military operations but a significant symbolic impact, the email argues.
The official did not disclose how the United States might pursue suspending Spain from the alliance.
"We do not work off emails. We work off official documents and government positions, in this case of the United States," Spanish Prime Minister Sanchez said when asked about the report ahead of a meeting of European Union leaders in Cyprus to discuss topics including NATO's mutual assistance clause, adding that Spain was a "loyal partner" to NATO.
Even if legally unenforceable, a public threat to suspend Spain from defensive support would be "gravely damaging" to the alliance and further damage trust between Europe and the United States, said Sven Biscop, professor in European defence policy at Belgium's Egmont Institute and Ghent University.
"Already, most European leaders are no longer confident the U.S. would support them in every crisis ... What Trump is doing makes no sense for America's interests," Biscop said.
FALKLAND ISLANDS
The memo also includes an option to consider reassessing U.S. diplomatic support for longstanding European "imperial possessions," such as the Falkland Islands near Argentina.
The State Department's website states that the islands are administered by the United Kingdom but are still claimed by Argentina, whose libertarian President Javier Milei is a Trump ally.
Britain and Argentina fought a brief war in 1982 over the islands after Argentina made a failed bid to take them. Some 650 Argentine and 255 British service personnel died before Argentina surrendered.
Trump has repeatedly insulted British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, calling him cowardly because of his unwillingness to join the U.S. war with Iran, saying he was "not Winston Churchill" and describing Britain's aircraft carriers as "toys."
Britain initially did not grant a request from the U.S. to allow its aircraft to attack Iran from two British bases, but later agreed to allow defensive missions aimed at protecting residents of the region, including British citizens, amid Iranian retaliation.
Addressing reporters at the Pentagon earlier this month, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said "a lot has been laid bare" by the war with Iran, noting that Iran's longer-range missiles cannot hit the United States but can reach Europe.
"We get questions, or roadblocks, or hesitations ... You don't have much of an alliance if you have countries that are not willing to stand with you when you need them," Hegseth said.
(Reporting by Phil Stewart; additional reporting by Inti Landauro and Victoria Waldersee in Madrid, Lili Bayer in Brussels; Editing by Don Durfee and Edmund Klamann)
The US is already threatening war on Nato, and has been for quite some time. The US appears unable to keep up with its BS.
Probably more a case of the US believing its BS.
US Moves against Spain and the UK?
Assuming the US stops diplomatic support of British imperial possessions, that means implicit support for Spain, cf. Gibraltar. :contract: :D
I am pretty sure MAGA supporters will not understand much of that post, be able to locate Gibraltar on a map, or Spain, or the UK.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on April 24, 2026, 09:07:09 AMUS Moves against Spain and the UK?
Assuming the US stops diplomatic support of British imperial possessions, that means implicit support for Spain, cf. Gibraltar. :contract: :D
The US wasn't particularly helpful in the Falklands - Reagan's Administration was very divided with Haig and Kirkpatrick broadly sympathetic with a Latin American fascist junta. Cap Weinberger and the DoD were more supportive.
The key ally actually was - as you'd expect given it's another country with imperial possessions (e.g. the largest exclusive economic zone in the Pacific) was France. Mitterrand was a crucial ally, providing intelligence, stopping sales of French arms to Argentina (and some other Latin American countries who might pass them to Argentina), providing technical details about French weapons like the exocet that they'd sold to Argentina and providing public support while the US was still engaging in futile "shuttle diplomacy" (of course, ironically, the UK had actually been trying to get rid of the Falklands in the 70s :lol:).
Even now it was French ships that deployed to the Eastern Med and have been helping protect both Cyprus and the UK bases in Cyprus.
Obviously there is also a fundamental hypocrisy/contradiction in the US position around imperial possessions. The UK did the deal with Mauritius over the Chagos Islands because of US concerns under the Biden administration and then re-iterated in the early days of Trump's second administration. They're now complaining about the deal and basically trying to collapse it so Britain keeps its imperial possession. One might almost say the primary goal is just to kick up a fuss for the sake of it.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 24, 2026, 09:55:02 AMI am pretty sure MAGA supporters will not understand much of that post, be able to locate Gibraltar on a map, or Spain, or the UK.
:lol:
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 24, 2026, 10:46:05 AM(snip) One might almost say the primary goal is just to kick up a fuss for the sake of it.
Disagree on "almost." One of the goals of MAGA is to ensure that no one, inside the US or outside of it, trusts the US government. Hence the appointment of an unbroken string of morons to every government position that they can.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 24, 2026, 10:46:05 AMQuote from: Duque de Bragança on April 24, 2026, 09:07:09 AMUS Moves against Spain and the UK?
Assuming the US stops diplomatic support of British imperial possessions, that means implicit support for Spain, cf. Gibraltar. :contract: :D
The US wasn't particularly helpful in the Falklands - Reagan's Administration was very divided with Haig and Kirkpatrick broadly sympathetic with a Latin American fascist junta. Cap Weinberger and the DoD were more supportive.
The key ally actually was - as you'd expect given it's another country with imperial possessions (e.g. the largest exclusive economic zone in the Pacific) was France. Mitterrand was a crucial ally, providing intelligence, stopping sales of French arms to Argentina (and some other Latin American countries who might pass them to Argentina), providing technical details about French weapons like the exocet that they'd sold to Argentina and providing public support while the US was still engaging in futile "shuttle diplomacy" (of course, ironically, the UK had actually been trying to get rid of the Falklands in the 70s :lol:).
Even now it was French ships that deployed to the Eastern Med and have been helping protect both Cyprus and the UK bases in Cyprus.
Obviously there is also a fundamental hypocrisy/contradiction in the US position around imperial possessions. The UK did the deal with Mauritius over the Chagos Islands because of US concerns under the Biden administration and then re-iterated in the early days of Trump's second administration. They're now complaining about the deal and basically trying to collapse it so Britain keeps its imperial possession. One might almost say the primary goal is just to kick up a fuss for the sake of it.
Well, the US had to choose between allies, happened in 1974 in Cyprus.
For once, Mitterrand was almost crystal clear in his support, notwithstanding this
imbroglio :
QuoteIn 2012, it came to light that while this support was taking place, a French technical team, employed by Dassault and already in Argentina, remained there throughout the war despite the presidential decree. The team had provided material support to the Argentines, identifying and fixing faults in Exocet missile launchers. John Nott said he had known the French team was there but said its work was thought not to be of any importance. An adviser to the then French government denied any knowledge at the time that the technical team was there. The French DGSE did know the team was there as they had an informant in the team but decried any assistance the team gave: "It's bordering on an act of treason, or disobedience to an embargo". John Nott, when asked whether he felt let down by the French, said, "If you're asking me: 'Are the French duplicitous people?' the answer is: 'Of course they are, and they always have been".[190
English wiki on the
Guerre des Malouines. :frog: Also referenced on the French wiki.
P-S: rediscovered the Falkland's War thanks to the sole British Falklandsploitation movie. :P
Quote from: viper37 on April 24, 2026, 10:57:23 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on April 24, 2026, 09:55:02 AMI am pretty sure MAGA supporters will not understand much of that post, be able to locate Gibraltar on a map, or Spain, or the UK.
:lol:
Who needs a Morón (support) base when you have a Maga (support) base. :P
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on April 24, 2026, 12:32:58 PMEnglish wiki on the Guerre des Malouines. :frog: Also referenced on the French wiki.
P-S: rediscovered the Falkland's War thanks to the sole British Falklandsploitation movie. :P
Interesting looking up the source on that as seems to have been a relatively recent discovery:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17256975
In his memoir, before that information and at the time, worth noting John Nott referred to France as Britain's "greatest ally" in the war which it absolutely was.
Quote from: The Brain on April 24, 2026, 07:08:44 AMThe US is already threatening war on Nato, and has been for quite some time. The US appears unable to keep up with its BS.
One hand doesn't know what the other hand is doing.
Not that it's hard to figure out. They are both up the ass, searching for the missing head.
US to pull jets, destroyers and submarines from NATO as part of European drawdown (https://www.politico.eu/article/us-to-pull-jets-destroyers-and-submarines-from-nato-in-a-broader-european-fallback/)
If NATO isn't over, it's not far from being over though.