Summary

NATO allies informally discussed deploying troops to Greenland after Trump threatened military action to seize the Danish territory.

Germany and other European nations explored possible responses, including invoking NATO’s Article 5, though it was ruled out due to US veto power.

Denmark pledged $1.5 billion to bolster Arctic security, while NATO considered expanding its presence.

Trump cites strategic concerns over Russian and Chinese influence and US missile defense. NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte acknowledged Arctic security needs but sought to defuse tensions.

  • Chainweasel
    link
    English
    325 hours ago

    Germany and other European nations explored possible responses, including invoking NATO’s Article 5, though it was ruled out due to US veto power.

    And this is the only reason why Trump didn’t pull the US out of NATO.
    Because of the veto power, he can effectively block them from taking action against the United States.
    NATO is dead.
    If other world leaders had half a brain between them, they would be forming a new alliance without the United States as we speak.

    • @lemmylommy
      link
      English
      254 hours ago

      The new alliance already exists. It’s called the European Union.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        74 hours ago

        The EU doesn’t include the UK, Canada, Norway, or Turkey. It isn’t really a good NATO substitute.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          3
          edit-2
          3 hours ago

          Yeah, we really need some kind of external European defence sphere to cover us in Canada. No amount of maple syrup (or rare earth metals) is too great a cost.

          • TrenchcoatFullOfBats
            link
            fedilink
            English
            13 hours ago

            Two of those are Commonwealth countries. Maybe a common defense mechanism could be agreed. Instead of Iron Dome, it could be called King Dome.

            • @P00ptart
              link
              English
              158 minutes ago

              You could make all kinds of jokes about king dome come.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              22 hours ago

              I guess, but the UK is a pretty shit-tier nuclear power. I’d really want it to include France.

      • Chainweasel
        link
        English
        114 hours ago

        They literally can’t, the US is a permanent member.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          113 hours ago

          We’re seeing from the White House that written words, rules, and laws are meaningless to them. They’re only a permanent member because words say so, and the members are willing to honour those words. If the USA were to attack another NATO member I’m sure those words can and will be ignored.

        • Pennomi
          link
          English
          63 hours ago

          They could reorganize as “NOT-U” under all the same terms but without the US.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        2
        edit-2
        3 hours ago

        NATO has no provision to remove members. It’s even worse than the EU where a single other member is enough to veto it.

        Stop doing that, Western leaders. 3/4 vote should be enough for anything.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      23 hours ago

      Yes, a new military alliance and other new non-US Western treaties needs to happen. Badly.

      Although, he’s saying he wants 5% spending from all members now, so maybe he’s still planning to “shoot himself in the foot” by leaving.

    • Nougat
      link
      fedilink
      13 hours ago

      “We’ll make our own NATO, with blackjack and hookers!”