Question in title. Just wondering as I saw France had proposed an initiative to withdraw because of the US’ shenanigans…
Now Excluding America Treaty Organization (NEATO)
Neat.
Neature
America looks like that kind of parent that says “you don’t need anyone, you have daddy. Everyone else is just jealous of how amazing you are”. The problem is that those kids grow up alone and end up depressed and with relationship problems.
I really hope america declaring war to the whole world does not end up being the end of humanity
They want it to survive and outlast Trump. Kicking out the US is Putin’s wet dream.
Russia can’t even handle Ukraine. What are they going to do against the rest of NATO, even without the US?
They aren’t going to invade the UK, but they want them out of the EU. You sabotage your enemy as much as possible, even if you’re not going to war immediately. Sun Tzu stuff, when your enemy is larger than you, divide them. Take down the strongest military alliance (or cut in half if you want) in history thats been in place for 70 years, yeah that’s a huge massive jizz in your pants accomplisment. Your entire framing is frankly wrong,
Break it up using his puppet in the white house.
Well, Russia is sort of holding back. They have tactical nukes, not sure how many of those nato has without the US. And going ballistic doesn’t end well for anyone. But Russia need the land of major nato members. They will pick on non-nato countries mostly, and more often they will do it by cutting off trade routes and such. Maybe they use thier now seasoned military to pick off some minor nato members, just to distract Nato from everything else. With the US pulling back from the international stage, Russia and Chine can divvy up a lot of the world.
Not using nukes isn’t holding back its not inviting armageddon.
The tactical ones are a grey area. They can be small enough not to end the world. They can also have far less long term effects than the larger and older ones. In short, you could nuke a military base as apposed to a city. They can be delivered as an artilery shell. So if Russia used one. I doubt the world would immediately luanch thier strategic arsenal in response.
It’s dubious that they have useful nukes available to just drop in an shell to start with. For practical purposes their nukes are fairly large and there are other considerations. Poorly maintained shit may malfunction creating additional doubt as to their military might and it might trigger additional aid by the rest of the world. They can’t actually fight NATO so actions have to be carefully calibrated so as not to bring the rest of the world or even just more of their aid into the fray lest it become even more expensive or even impossible to win.
I will say I don’t know what Russia specifically has in thier arsenal beyond the general “tactical nukes”. But artillery shell or missle… it makes little difference. Tactical nukes are relatively new, so aren’t much of an age concern as the bigger older stuff. Functionality concerns, only they really know. And I agree, which is why I said they are holding back. But if the situation changes, they may not need to hold back.
Tactical nukes are relatively new
Like new if you time traveled from the 50s We literally conceived of a bazooka launched personal nuke. Generally speaking not much was actually made by anyone and is unlikely to have been maintained as they would have been deemed basically useless for decades as is very expensive to maintain.
They way I see it, USA can’t be kicked out but it can leave.
That said I don’t see a problem in making a new NATO, without the US and (hopefully) without veto rights
We don’t need to kick out the USA. We should obviously not be sharing Intel any longer but the proof will ultimately be in the pudding. If the USA attacks a NATO ally, NATO rallies to their defence as per article V and the USA is no longer involved.
If anyone else attacks a NATO ally and the USA refuse to abide by article V (despite being the only previous ones to invoke it, dragging many of its (formerly) closest allies into a 2 decade quagmire, then they are no longer in NATO.
If nothing happens and the USA does nothing, we remain in this dog shit status quo
To my understanding no, not unless they break the rules. (Trump breaking rules is as common as oxygen so who knows)
NATO should be dissolved, it’s an old relic of us imperialism that has no place in society
GoddlessCommie’s take is valid.
Nato is the core organizing instrument of western imperialism. Nato is like Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense shield. It’s easy to look at it and say, 'Well how could anyone object to a tool of defense??’ But if you know anything about war then you know that establishing an unbreakable defensive capability is what allows an imperial army to slaughter their weaker targets with impunity.
I’m not co-signing GodlessCommie’s point. But we gotta ask: did you like Vietnam? Iraq? Afghanistan? Korea? Venezuela? Nicaragua? Georgia? Libya? Ukraine? Gaza? Because arguably, all of this shit rests upon the conditions established by NATO and US imperialism. So… It’s not unreasonable to ask whether NATO has actually fostered peace or just fostered peace for the people who wage wars.
Could you explain exactly how NATO and US imperialism led to Russia invading Ukraine?
I wrote a long answer and then accidentally hit the back button and don’t have the patience to retype it.
The short version is that Vladimir Putin is responsible for the invasion of Ukraine. I don’t want any confusion about that.
NATO’s influence was that the US has been advancing against Russia for decades even after their country collapsed, and it was obviously nakedly escalatory. Combined with the US is overall foreign policy, which has always been imperial, we’ve acted as though putting a gun to someone’s head and telling them to stay cool was an actual way of calming things rather than the exact opposite.
I’m not saying that a version of NATO couldn’t have done what it claims to do. But that’s never been the version that has existed.
If by “advancing against Russia” you mean that a bunch of countries were extremely eager to sign up when given the chance, then arguably its Russia’s own fault that they felt the need to join a defense alliance so that their sovereignty would not be threatened in the future. And given that Ukraine has been invaded multiple times by Russia exactly because it does not have a NATO mutual defense guarantee, it sure looks like they had the right idea.
I don’t know how useful NATO is without the USA. The EU, for instance, also has a mutual defense clause.
Cries in Canadian
Edit: I meant to find a more recent article: Canada clinches deal to join Europe’s €150B defense scheme Dec. 1, 2025
Canada has reached a final agreement to join the EU’s €150 billion Security Action for Europe program, two EU diplomats told POLITICO, marking the first time a third country will formally participate in the bloc’s flagship joint procurement initiative.
The agreement was later confirmed by the European Commission.
“This is the next step in our deepening cooperation and symbolic of the shared priorities of the European Union and Canada,” it said in a joint statement with Canada.
The breakthrough follows months of technically complex negotiations and was communicated directly to ministers taking part in Monday’s Foreign Affairs Council; Defense Commissioner Andrius Kubilius informed delegations that negotiations with Ottawa had concluded.
Canada’s accession to the loan-for-weapons SAFE scheme gives Ottawa access to jointly financed defense projects and allows Canadian companies to bid into EU-supported joint procurement projects. For Brussels, securing a G7 partner strengthens the credibility of SAFE as it seeks to coordinate long-term weapons demand and ramp up Europe’s defense industrial base.
Under SAFE, third countries can account for a maximum of 35 percent of the value of a weapons system paid for by the scheme; Canada will be able to have a larger share but it will have to pay a fee “commensurate with the benefits the Partner Country and its entities are expected to derive,” factoring in GDP, industrial competitiveness and the depth of cooperation with European manufacturers.
Other issues tackled in negotiations covered conditions on intellectual property control and limits on non-EU inputs for sensitive systems including drones, missile-defense assets and strategic enablers.
We’re doing what we can: Canada signs deal deepening European defence and security partnership
Canada and Europe were drawn a little closer together on [June 23rd, 2025] after Prime Minister Mark Carney signed a strategic defence and security partnership with the European Union.
The agreement opens the door for Canadian companies to participate in the $1.25-trillion ReArm Europe program, which is seen as a step toward making Canada less reliant on — and less vulnerable to — the whims of the United States.
Eventually, it will also help the Canadian government partner with other allied nations to buy military equipment under what’s known as the SAFE program.
I saw France had proposed an initiative to withdraw because of the US’ shenanigans…
Where?
France is leading NATO air and ground troops this year, and I didn’t see anything about France leaving NATO when I just checked.
French Lawmaker Files NATO Withdrawal Bid Over Greenland
https://ground.news/article/french-lawmaker-files-nato-withdrawal-bid-over-greenland_0a19a5
Clémence Guetté, Vice President of France’s National Assembly, submitted a parliamentary resolution calling for France to withdraw from NATO’s integrated command structure, citing President Trump’s threats to seize Greenland from NATO ally Denmark as evidence the US-led alliance threatens world peace.
So one politician from France submitted a resolution in the French government to do it.
And you…
You honestly and legitimately think that is the same thing as:
I saw France had proposed an initiative to withdraw because of the US’ shenanigans
Like, you didn’t just go and try to find a source but didn’t read it. You just don’t understand how what that says and what you said are vastly different things?
I understand words matter so maybe I used too forceful of words describing what they (or this one person) is doing. Sure, not all of France is pushing it, but the stone is starting to move down hill I guess.
shenanigans
Our shenanigans are cheeky and fun
There is no provision and formal mechanism to expel a member state
The sacred no homers
US will leave NATO.
Or you know maybe we should abolish this bad institution.
Damn son. You’re an idiot
bold position to hold. care to back your argument up with any facts or are you just regurgitating bullshit your handlers told you to say?
edit: yeah…didn’t think so.
That’s kind of just Europe plus Canada. But the whole point is nukes. Without the US we don’t really have that (the UK has a few but the US has the keys iirc, and France has a token amount), so Europe needs to get those weapons programs going again.
The UK and France have more than 500 nukes.
The US doesn’t “have the keys” to UK nukes (ie the UK doesn’t keep US approval to fire them), but they are maintained and built by the US (I’m sure if they had to, they could figure it out themselves).
And let’s be real, you don’t need thousands of nukes when a handful (when carefully stored and separated like the UK does in submarines for their active ones) could destroy so much of the planet.
Will a country with 1000 nukes invade a country that has “only” 5?
Removed by mod
Wouldn’t be NATO then, it would be EATO
Canada is still in it, Don’t get much more “North Atlantic” then that.
