• charade_you_are@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    14 days ago

    Side note: If this administration does invade, just accept the invite to the group chat our drunken Secretary of Defense sends you.

  • Melllvar@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    14 days ago

    Article 5 doesn’t oblige members to take any particular action. It only says that an attack on one is an attack on all, and leaves it to each member to decide what actions, if any, they will take in response.

  • Strider@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    14 days ago

    It’s not an easy say since Greenland is not a nato member, however it’s an autonomous state of Denmark, which is.

    Anyone’s guess, really.

    Edit: just as an addition I want to clarify I am trying to help answer the question. I wish peace for the world and especially Greenland.

    • bstix@feddit.dk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      14 days ago

      Greenland is part of NATO just the same way that all other Danish territories are.

      • Strider@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        14 days ago

        I am not sure about that.

        But might of course be wrong. As stated in another answer I am not an expert for this but tried to give an answer why this situation is not that easy.

        Edit: Jesus, being downvoted for not knowing and putting in effort. Somehow I know why the world is going the way it is. Bring it on!

        • bstix@feddit.dk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          14 days ago

          It’s not shown on the list of NATO members because it’s not a separate country. Other islands like Bornholm and Zealand are obviously also not shown, because they are Denmark. So is Greenland. They are not independent, though both Denmark and Greenland has worked towards that in many years.

          Greenland was part of NATO since the beginning, and you could even argue that it was before that, because the collaboration between Denmark and USA on military control of Greenland predates NATO.

            • bstix@feddit.dk
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              14 days ago

              Because Denmark is a democracy and the people on Greenland has voted towards independence. Denmark is not keeping them from seceding, but their economy has kept them from doing it before.

              An independence referendum has not been done yet, but once they do it, Denmark will most likely accept the outcome without objections. Iceland did the same thing in 1918.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenlandic_independence

    • endofline@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      14 days ago

      But Denmark is deemed legally to protect its autonomy which is a nato country. It’s a strange case…

    • Pacrat173@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      14 days ago

      I know it’s not the best source from what I read on the Wikipedia article Greenland being a Autonomous territory of Denmark is apart of Denmark and therefore a NATO member

      Also found this article

      On 20 March 2023 Greenland send their own diplomat within Denmark’s group. So not only are they a Denmark Autonomous territory but they also have their own diplomat in NATO.

    • Quilotoa@lemmy.caOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      14 days ago

      Yeah, it’s a no win. Either NATO becomes ineffective because it won’t honour it’s agreement or WW3 starts.

  • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    14 days ago

    Article 5 is only an obligation to have a meeting if someone calls for a meeting. It is not as strong as propagandized.

    Greece and Turkey often have clashes and it is never a NATO issue.

    CIA pig vermin NATO chief, Rutte, said it would not be a NATO matter.

    • Ruigaard@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      14 days ago

      I’ve never seen my former prime-minister been referenced as that :') - most certainly not my political colour, but why CIA pig vermin? He is most certainly a competent manager of the status quo, but as a leader spineless and without a vision (for a better world)

      • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        14 days ago

        NATO leaders are only allowed to be CIA pig vermin meant to force submission of other members to US. CIA agents dominate all colonial political parties, but it is only the most loyal that rise to NATO chief.

  • jaxxed@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    14 days ago

    Check the article 5 requirement. I don’t see any “unless another NATO country” exceptions.

    Probably moot as all the US has to do is increase presence and wait for an “or else” moment, so that they can rely with “or else what?”