Trump withdraws US from dozens of international organizations, White House says
2d 23h ago by slrpnk.net/u/perestroika in world from www.reuters.com
On January 7, US president Donald Trump promised to withdraw the US from 35 international organizations and 31 UN agencies:
The Memorandum orders all Executive Departments and Agencies to cease participating in and funding 35 non-United Nations (UN) organizations and 31 UN entities that operate contrary to U.S. national interests, security, economic prosperity, or sovereignty.
Unverified: then the White House deleted the announcement from their website (personal note: I did receive 404 on it for a while).
Correction: announcement is still up or has reappeared. An archived copy is also available in case they change their mind.
This is the year boys.
If there’s something particular you want to do during peace time, do it know, soon it’ll be Sudan and Ukraine everywhere.
GTA VI was my escape. Now we probably won't even get to release date. Fuck this timeline
...squadron 42 is finally tracking for release...
edit: ...heck, even half life 3 is finally tracking for release...
Release the evidence trump raped children! Not these distractions
You're a child is you think this is the distraction. If anything, the Epstein files are the distraction. FFS, think BIG. There is no way the kiddie fuckers get justice.
We learned from WWII and taken the oil fields right off the bat. We're talking world domination here. And the fascists are going for it before the cult leader's dementia takes him off camera.
Putin’s little dotard piggy bitch
Correction of facts: the announcement is still up or has reappeared, though it was inaccessible for a while, enough for some journalists to provide an archived copy.
Personal opinion:
- diagnosis: raging delirium / stable genius syndrome
- prognosis: at this level of progression, ritual suicide within 18 months
The White House did not immediately respond when asked for further details and a list of the organizations.
Silver lining, it was probably only 3-5...
Does Trump have legal authority to abrogate treaties without congressional approval?
Like that’s going to stop him. It hasn’t so far.
If a president has this much power there shouldn't be a president.
Hopefully NATO is one of them and we can just rip the bandaid off now.
Edit: Huh, downvotes. Does Lemmy think NATO is in great shape and will definitely hold for the foreseeable future?
As it is, it's in the way of other, more credible alliances forming, because nobody wants to weaken NATO. But, the moment the US does something in Greenland, all that delay will be for naught.
Please note: he can't leave NATO by decree, the keys got taken to the Congress during Biden's time. It's among the few treaties a US president currently cannot leave.
Yeah just put it on the pile of other stuff he's not legally allowed to do but he's doing anyway
hope in one hand and take a shit in the other kinda dealio
takes a shit on your hands
........what? Is that not what you wanted?
TIL! Oh well.
He hasn't exactly let that stop him before, especially since MAGA controls Congress.
To my understanding, there are multiple republican congress critters against leaving NATO - so, despite nominal MAGA control, no majority.
Did they actually vote that way? I wouldn't trust any of them on their word.
The USA may be weak in their dedication to alliances and giving their now untrustworthy word to provide mutual defence, but we in Europe are not.
When a NATO nation is attacked and calls for aid, we will answer, as we have in the past when such threats and tyranny arose.
That is the promise of civilisation. That's what separates us from the barbarians that would seek to destroy or enslave us all to build more power for themselves.
Yeah. I would trust NATO without America a lot more. That's a kind of credible alternative organisation of it's own, which their membership precludes.
Europe failed to fight the monster in their backyard, hence why we are where we are today.
So if the US genuinely invade that would be considered triggering Article V as the article doesn’t have an exemption clause of said invader being a different NATO Member.
Furthermore the way NATO is structured is it can’t function unless the US is at the steering wheel.
So forget NATO being weakened it would genuinely collapse. And as for replacements it would take years and the ball to transition hasn’t started rolling.
So if the US genuinely invade that would be considered triggering Article V as the article doesn’t have an exemption clause of said invader being a different NATO Member.
Sort of? Turkey actually tested this once. Since it was Turkey and Greece it all kind of just got smoothed over. If it was the US the entire thing becomes a farce, and the treaty is just a piece of paper.
Furthermore the way NATO is structured is it can’t function unless the US is at the steering wheel.
Are you just thinking about all the US officers involved in running it? It's not like the US actually, officially calls the shots.
Nope the Turkey Vs Greece was Turkey invading the Island of Cyprus which was considered independent of Greece, thus legally not a trigger for Article V.
Greece would of course come to the defense of Cyprus (the population was majority Greek Cypriote after all.) but still for all intents and purposes there was an argument that a NATO member wasn’t attacked.
Actually it does. That’s how ingrained the US is. NATO despite claiming shared corporation and use of unanimous voting is functionally set up so the actual governing and administration pillars are US controlled.
It’s not like the EU where the loss of the UK (only nation to leave after all) was just a shrug and move on like nothing happened.
If NATO lost the US multiple key institutions would be vacant till the remaining nations amend and restructure. A process that would take years to iron out
If NATO is just the US, why wasn't it in Iraq? Because the US didn't want help? I was there, that was not the message they were putting out.
The US wasn’t alone and did gather other NATO nations to invade Iraq.
But as to why NATO proper was not used it’s simply Iraq wasn’t a NATO member and the US (though not from lack of trying) couldn’t connect Iraq to 9/11 well enough to justify Article V’s use.
Oh, so there is more than the US's say-so at play.
It's almost like it's a voluntary agreement to coordinate and defend each other. One which doesn't intrinsically depend on the US in any way, but just happens to have the US as by far the largest member.
It’s voluntary yes but the US isn’t just the largest member but it’s baked into the system the US is in charge.
Think it like the situation with Amazon Web Services. When it shut down it took out roughly 2/3 of the websites with it. Essentially for all intents and purposes the core of the internet was gone and that had a nasty ripple effect.
That’s obstinately what would happen if the US was removed from NATO.
Oh, okay. AWS is actually a good analogy. It's a huge pillar of the existing infrastructure, and if it was gone it would be a pretty huge, unprecedented crisis. The internet would still come back, though. (Since I'm on all alt platforms already, I actually didn't notice it was down until I saw it on the news!)
Similarly, NATO would be in a bind, but I have every reason to think the considerable power and common interests of the remaining parties would see it through. One big question I've seen mentioned is the American officers that staff parts of it. Either they could keep working there even if the US is not a member, which is possible, or there would be just be a period of interruption to it's coordination functions while the ranks are refilled. Since Britain and France are nuclear powers, just article 5 is a strong protection already, though.
Yes it would come back but it would be a good long while because we are having to start from the bottom all over again.
That’s the part you seem to not be getting. We are talking a process that would take YEARS to get done, if it would even happen at all.
How much of NATO is actually needed in the short term? The last bit there was kind of going in that direction. Just being a nuclear power that would credibly respond to actions against any member seems like it would provide safety for a few years.
Over the longer term, a coordinated structure to respond to novel threats starts to matter.
Given Russia is looking to take Ukraine and likely the other former Soviet countries and now we have the US is eyeing for the western hemisphere you are going to need NATO as a whole.
As for nuclear deterrence that only works if you are willing to use it. And I doubt France or the UK is willing.
Russia is having trouble fighting just Ukraine + Western weapons. Europe would not have trouble winning (at whatever cost) if it came to it in the near term, NATO or no.
I feel like it should go without saying that the US would not be supporting NATO, if NATO was fighting the US. So, zero days to build back up without them, and they probably blow things up on their way out.
And I doubt France or the UK is willing.
Why? Unless you think none of the nuclear powers are willing. France in particular does not have a reputation for passivity.
Yes Russia is struggling but at the same time Ukraine (despite the efforts) is also not winning. Furthermore the military coordination is done via NATO, so its loss would create problems. Yes it’s not going to be Russian tanks on the streets of Paris, but it will be Russian tanks making a mess All over Eastern Europe.
Obviously yes but also NATO would stop existing. Seriously where within how NATO is structured are you getting that the loss of the US would be a shrug?
Erm because Nukes wipe out whole cities? We are talking literal WMDs here, what of that screams “yeah we totally are willing to be the first to launch a strike.”
Hey, I didn't say a shrug. It's also a bad option, just in a world with no really great ones left.
Erm because Nukes wipe out whole cities? We are talking literal WMDs here, what of that screams “yeah we totally are willing to be the first to launch a strike.”
That's also how it works for the US, though. MAD has still held for decades, because nobody really wants whatever thing bad enough to risk escalation.