• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    235 days ago

    Literally against their rules. Countries are not eligible if they are fighting an active war.

    • @scarabic
      link
      English
      110 hours ago

      Did you read the article?

    • @Serinus
      link
      English
      185 days ago

      Theoretically, the idea would be that the joining of NATO would be part of ending the war. NATO could allow it if they wanted to.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      125 days ago

      and literally wouldn’t happen either, seeing how every member has to approve, including turkey and hungary.

    • @whotookkarl
      link
      English
      75 days ago

      Special military operation, the aggressor denies it is a war or invasion, but I’m not sure how that affects NATO enrollment.

    • Phoenixz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      75 days ago

      Rules cab be broken if it’s for the better of everyone involved.

      Russia doesn’t count, Russia can go fuck itself

    • troed
      link
      fedilink
      55 days ago

      I assume this is “the Trump plan” so he’ll say agree to it or he takes the US and goes home.

      • @saltesc
        link
        English
        8
        edit-2
        5 days ago

        NATO would allow the US to go home; it’s more than strong enough. Though the US power would certainly be missed, especially since it was partly their idea to have friends against common enemies and stay safe.

        The rules exist for very good reasons and are the cornerstones of what ensures NATO is a peace-keeping.defenaive pact, not a biased empirical-style alliance. Also, keep in mind that all countries of NATO are free to involve themselves in the Ukrainian War, they just cannot do so under the NATO banner. And if their homelands are attacked in retaliation, NATO will be less oblige as they fundamentally are anti-aggressor.

        If Trump left NATO, the US actions will be remembered and it’s unlikely they’d get back in with the same powers.

        • troed
          link
          fedilink
          15 days ago

          Without the agreement of the US a lot of the weapon systems NATO members have cannot be used. That’s the downside of using common components and platforms throughout the alliance.

          • @Womble
            link
            English
            25 days ago

            The weapons “cant be used” in the diplomatic sense, it not like the bombs phone up the pentegon to ask permission to be used. If we’re talking about the US ripping up all its commitments I think other countries might be less inclined to pay attention to those.

            • troed
              link
              fedilink
              05 days ago

              … which would cause Trump to cancel trade most certainly. I’m a citizen of a European Nato member and I don’t believe we can take that risk.

              • @Womble
                link
                English
                35 days ago

                Probably yes, but if its at the point of European NATO having to fight directly that’s likely a second order consideration.

          • @chronicledmonocle
            link
            English
            25 days ago

            That’s literally the opposite purpose of having common munitions.

            • troed
              link
              fedilink
              15 days ago

              Yeah. We’ve learnt a lot from how countries have acted when we’ve tried giving weapons and munitions to Ukraine the last few years.

              The Swedish Gripen airplanes are still not in Ukraine. It’s not due to Sweden or Ukraine …