So um... what happens if a EU country who is not in NATO gets invaded? 🤔
this post was submitted on 25 Feb 2025
671 points (98.6% liked)
World News
41300 readers
2807 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The EU defense clause gets triggered, which is basically a weak obligation to provide "assistance". It's not an automatic call to arms like NATO's A5.
I think it's generally agreed upon that Art. 42 (7) of the EU-Treaty is stronger than Art. 5.
EU: If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.
"an obligation of aid and assistance by all means in their power"
vs
NATO: The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
"as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force" means direct military support isn't a guarantee.
I think it's generally agreed upon that Art. 42 (7) of the EU-Treaty is stronger than Art. 5.
That's absolutely not the consensus. This is what the EU themselves say about article 42:
Substantial uncertainty remains over the interpretation of Article 42(7). Following its first and only invocation in 2015, after the November terrorist attacks in Paris, debate intensified on how it works in practice, its scope, the definitions of 'armed aggression' and 'territory', and which forms of aggression it applies to (e.g. whether those include hybrid threats). Experts note that Article 42(7) 'leaves more room for interpretation than one might expect from a clause in a legally binding text'. Many experts hoped that the Strategic Compass would deliver clarification, however that did not occur.
The problem is that through precedent we know that A5 invocations can (and almost certainly will) trigger military aid. With A42, you at best get "aid and assistance", which the EU notes is super vague. The "by all means in their power" is also very vague legally speaking. Suppose Russia invades Estonia, and Latvia says "intervening militarily would invite a Russian invasion of Latvia, so intervening is outside of our power". This consistent vagueness at every level of A42 makes it so it's generally assumed that A42 could very well be weaker than A5, even if the wording appears stronger. It's a political choice how to interpret A42, but with A5 the scopes are defined a bit more clearly, and there's far less wiggle room due to the collective action, rather than the individual actions EU member states would take.
through precedent we know that A5 invocations can (and almost certainly will) trigger military aid.
I don't see why this is 'almost certain'. You rightfully point out that the EU clause leaves wiggle room, but I don't see why you think that room is not there with NATO. I don't know if the current US president cares much about any precedents. If he can wiggle he will wiggle. I don't think Europe trusts US to honor A5 any more.
There is of course wiggle room in the NATO clause, but there's less of it. Additionally, the fact that the collective decides if military action is needed then individual members don't get an opt-out of that.
Of course, ultimately nothing is ironclad, but given the established precedent for A5 and the excessive amount of individual wiggle room in A42, as far as I know A5 is considered to be more likely to be successfully invoked than A42 is.
That's just messaging from leadership on future direction.
Unfortunately, Orban has not magically stopped being Putin's toadie.
Maybe Trump shitting on everything and making Europe realize they don't need the approval of the US to breathe was the best thing that could have happened to Ukraine.
I think the world is starting to wake up that maybe we don’t actually need America, at all. People will go where the jobs and economy is. America might not be that soon enough.
I think that's Putin's plan with Trump. I'm not sure they have something on him more than he's just a complete moron that will destabilize the USA from inside.
I was thinking one of the best things that could come out of this is if the US split into multiple countries
That's exactly what Russia has wanted since the cold war "ended". That said, I honestly don't know how we heal from this. A third of the country is bat shit crazy, and the sane among us are never going to join in their fascism. I think Balkanization is, for better or worse, in our future.
Assuming we don't all blow ourselves up first.
That’s exactly what Russia has wanted since the cold war “ended”.
No shit. Americans empowered ultranationalist to balkanize the USSR. Have a taste of your own medecine.
I would feel better about this if America didn't have so many nukes...
I genuinely hope Canada has some operational plan in a drawer somewhere of conducting a commando raid into North Dakota and Montana to neutralize our ICBM command centers.
Won’t help with all the SLBM’s (submarine launched) and B-52 launched nuclear weapons that we have…
Every warhead either secured or destroyed in a collapsing country would be a victory, I think.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Unfortunately the division this time is more rural/urban which would make the logistics of that nearly impossible. If you offered a time for people to move it’d also be vastly lopsided, not to mention things like house prices would crater in some places while skyrocketing in others.
Oh no, house prices, one of the thing that totally works under today's oligarchy I mean free market
I didn't necessarily mean best for Americans, any way you put it they're cooked.
But ya, logistically it's extremely unlikely, that being said California is already talking about secession. So if it did happen it'd likely be certain states (California, Texas, etc.) And not all of them along state lines.
People don't usually think about the long term effects of decisions like this when making them, too.
All it took was a fifth columnist takeover and both sides of my family and my wife's being disconnected from their roots for more than an entire generation... 🥳
Yeah, unfortunately I live here, so while this is great for others, it isn't so great for us.
Those of us who voted for Kamala are victims that unfortunately will have to go down alongside everyone else. Fascist dictatorships have no place in civilized society.
Unhappily married couple, so focused on avoiding misery for a few months of divorce proceedings, decide instead to live miserable every day for the next 30 years.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
I think we're in for some rocky times over the next few years, but I think the world will be better off with the USA knocked down a few pegs. They are too large and their general population is too easily swayed by nonsense.
The question is, will the population learn anything by being starved out or will they continue to blame anything but their own hubris?
And the rest of the world, particularly the EU, needs to realize that if they don't pull close together they're going to be squeezed out by large forces in the world. I mean look at the influence it already has as a bloc - if they'd cooperate more closely they could be an equal power to contrast China and the USA. Which is why there are forces working overtime to keep EU nations apart.
UK is still coming to terms with Brexit, which happened in 2020, and many will still argue it was a good idea, just badly executed.
we are, today, russia 15 years ago. i'm putting in as much work as i can to not be russia as it is now in 15 years.
I fear we are well on the path as was described by Robert Heinlein a while back:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22If_This_Goes_On%E2%80%94%22
Unfortunately I don't expect things to go well I'm the states. I really hope I'm wrong in that...
Good question. Germany only "learned" by being forced to change after military defeat (and even so, the AfD has been making progress). That's not going to happen here - it will have to be the harder way, total societal collapse.
I 100% agree that the changes our former allies are making to be more independent from the US are good for them and probably the world as a whole. I do think the the parallel weakening of the US as a world power is what Putin wants for Trump and his ilk to do. My hope is that the economy is hit so hard and people suffer so much that it spurs change before we're past the point of relatively short term recovery (5-10 years, not 20+).
We just need a handful of Republican reps to decide that they don't actually want to give up all of their power to a dictator and his gang, or that maybe they don't want to be associated with the Nazi party. Just a few change their mind, impeach, and remove. Maybe the first time a member of Congress eats a bullet outside of their residence because someone reached the end of their rope, others will act out of fear. I've got my fingers crossed for who I hope it is.
load more comments
(2 replies)
the best thing that could have happened to Ukraine.
And therefore the world
Trump does shake shit up and sometimes, good things come out of it. It's not worth the cost of the bad things though, because it's usually everyone below the 1% that suffer.
I think Ukraine should definitely join, but right now we desperately need to reform the veto system before taking any more members
Ukraine first and hopefully Canada soon after.
And US, in the end, we need to help them. We should write down a list of reforms for them, they got people shooting at themselves, living in tents along the streets, they're full of drugs addicted, obesity, low quality education, and so on. Let them apply too
It's so funny that even the altruistic Americans don't ever see the benefits of support deals, only that they're either helping or taking.
It's funny that in the end it's a question of oil and gas
Time to protect yourselves from Putin and his puppet.
view more: next ›