I hate how “anti-war” has been hijacked by these people to mean, let imperialist countries invade whoever they want with no consequences. (in the case of tankies, any imperialist country that isn’t in NATO).
I hate how “anti-war” has been hijacked by these people to mean, let imperialist countries invade whoever they want with no consequences. (in the case of tankies, any imperialist country that isn’t in NATO).
Similarly if most countries have a mutual defence pact, no one country will be able to invade another without being at war with literally the whole world.
I’m afraid that mutual defense isn’t as iron clad as you think. If Article 5 of NATO ever gets triggered you’ll get a masterclass on weaseling out of obligations. It’s ironic because Ukraine may already be receiving the kind of support a full NATO member is entitled to.
Unfortunately with Trump the US will try to weasel their way out. Europe knows too well what happens.
This does seem likely with Trump… but he’s also in bed with the military-industrial complex, which never misses a chance to get contracts.
It only works if you actually commit to it.
But imagine the implications if a country did not commit to it (bar an obvious one like Hungary or Turkey). They’ll likely get sanctioned, probably will have trouble entering any useful alliances for the next decade or so because no one trusts them anymore.
If one didn’t, sure. But what happens when NATO as a whole doesn’t defend Poland? What’s Poland going to do? Or even just Trump’s US?
The trick is that (Eastern) Europe is filled with NATO troops and material from all countries. You would need an extremely nasty retreat of these troops if you do not support (say) Poland. Also at the moment (officially) the US has stationed nuclear weapons in 6 European countries, and there are very likely more also in the form of submarines that are not known to the public. Retreating means leaving those weapons in Russian hands. Then again, maybe Trump does not care about that.
Well ideally if you don’t want to be a part of an agreement, you just tell the people you made the agreement with that you are no longer a part of it.
If you do so amicably, parties may be fine with it it may not have bad effects. If you wait till one of those counties is being invaded and back out, it likely would not end amicably, and with them having to switch over to a wartime economy, they may cut all trade moving forward with the member who screwed them over. Could cost the U.S. trillions in trade annually.
Aka it would be more profitable to support your allies, or get out of the agreement early, but that doesn’t guarantee counties don’t say… Why should we trade with someone who would hang us out to dry? And it hurts our economy anyway.
Article 5 was triggered by 9/11 and is the reason everyone followed America into Afghanistan
Removed by mod
Fine, let’s just make it legal for bad guys to have guns and illegal for anyone else have guns, I’m sure that will work! (ever heard of the monopolisation of violence to uphold the status quo of those in power)
Also you’re a 30 minute old account who’se entire purpose seems to be spreading your views on this very post, confirmed by username and sharing of misinformation source.
@WrenFeathers@lemmy.world is this kind of thing worth reporting or not? Just super sketchy behaviour but idk if it specifically breaks any rules.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Ww1