this post was submitted on 14 Feb 2025
461 points (98.5% liked)

World News

41221 readers
2895 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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.

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/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

UK Labour leader Keir Starmer reaffirmed to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy that Ukraine is on an "irreversible path" to NATO membership.

This stance contrasts with recent U.S. signals, where Donald Trump suggested potential concessions to Russia, including accepting Ukraine's non-NATO status.

European leaders, including Emmanuel Macron, have criticized such concessions, insisting on Ukraine's right to negotiate its future.

The UK also imposed new sanctions on Russian officials and entities.

top 29 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Rokin@lemm.ee 77 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Ukraine in, USA out, and let's start bunkering up.

[–] realitista@lemm.ee 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

From what Zelensky said, it's also Germany and Hungary that aren't on board.

[–] LMurch@thelemmy.club 4 points 1 week ago

Hungary is Orban, right? European Trump? That makes sense. Why isn't Germany onboard though?

[–] Eezyville@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You want the US, the world's only super power, out of the defense treaty that protects these other countries from the very aggressive Russia? You think that's a good idea? Ok buddy...

[–] Rokin@lemm.ee 1 points 1 week ago
[–] whotookkarl@lemmy.world 44 points 1 week ago

It either ends with a NATO allied Ukraine or a nuclear armed Ukraine, the only language dictators like Putin understand is violence or the threat of violence.

[–] ahal@lemmy.ca 44 points 1 week ago (2 children)

The real question is whether they'll still want in after the US is done with whatever it is they're doing to it.

[–] Quill7513@slrpnk.net 106 points 1 week ago (1 children)

the real question is if the US will still be a NATO member by the end of this year

[–] diffusive@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Would the US leave the NATO military bases in Europe? Because that would be huge and would reduce a lot the US military presence in Europe. And, with that, influence in Europe…

[–] SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world 22 points 1 week ago

If Putin deems it necessary, Musk and Trump will do it.

[–] AdamEatsAss@lemmy.world 24 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It would still be better than no defensive pact.

[–] Uruanna@lemmy.world 17 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Yeah, whatever Trump decides to do with the US membership, there's nothing he can do about everyone else. He can pick ~~his~~ the US' toys and leave, NATO will be weaker, but Europe will still want an alliance to defend themselves, even if Trump tries to pressure individual members.

People claiming it's dead are delusional.

[–] ramble81@lemm.ee 15 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

Couldn’t EU and other countries form their own defense pact with whoever they want? What makes them specifically need to be in nato?

[–] Laser@feddit.org 17 points 1 week ago (1 children)

NATO has a lot of infrastructure already including designated response forces, a command structure etc. In addition to that, a European alliance exists(CSDP), though unsurprisingly, it's not the same as Europe's NATO efforts, as it would have been basically duplicated effort since most EU members are also part of NATO.

An example of coordinated European defence is the fact that the Netherland's armed forces are now under command of the German military. So efforts are underway.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 11 points 1 week ago (2 children)

CSDP is specifically a EU thing and result of the French drive for a EU army... which it arguably is: Political and strategic command, check, even if it has to outsource much military matters to the national armies. It's been boosted quite a bit since the first Trump term and by now even the most atlanticist Atlanticist isn't working against it any more. Also, the US isn't working against it any more, they were worried about a EU army sidelining the likes of Turkey. This gets often overlooked, especially by Trumpists, how much the US invested into not having to compete in security matters with a big European blob.

That's different from a potential European defence treaty, though: Not all of Europe is in the EU and there's definitely a couple of NATO allies we'd like to keep, and others to add.

An example of coordinated European defence is the fact that the Netherland’s armed forces are now under command of the German military.

That's actually a separate thing, that's bilateral cooperation, not EU level. Long story short the Dutch land forces were so tiny it just didn't make sense to have an independent strategic command. Also Dutch is a dialect anyway so it doesn't make sense for them to have an army. They'll probably definitely want to keep their fleet, even when there's a EU army.

[–] Laser@feddit.org 5 points 1 week ago

I didn't want to imply the NL forces things happened under CSDP; it was just an example of military cooperation between member states.

I just wanted to give some examples of European military cooperation that's not NATO as the other comments implied nothing exists / it would fail due to national interests or whatever.

I hope we'll see more cooperation in the future

[–] Geobloke@lemm.ee 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Wow, how did the Dutch hurt you so bad? Weinreich would be proud

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 2 points 1 week ago

Their football team exists. Worse, it still did not surrender. Nothing but total annihilation or Anschluss to the DFB is acceptable.

[–] SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

Probably, but it would be a lot of bickering first.

[–] meowmeowbeanz@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 week ago

The geopolitical theater unfolds like a poorly scripted drama where everyone's reading from different pages. Starmer's "irreversible path" rhetoric reeks of reheated platitudes served cold—comfort food for a conflict that's entering its fourth year of stalemate. Meanwhile, Trump casually redraws borders over brunch with Putin, reducing sovereignty to a bargaining chip. The transatlantic alliance isn't crumbling; it's reverting to its natural state of transactional pragmatism.

Boris Johnson's GB News cameo as the voice of reason? A surreal twist even Kafka would reject. His "headless chicken-ism" quip about Europe perfectly encapsulates the West's strategic dissonance—flapping wings masking the absence of flight. Macron's "no capitulation" stance echoes like a man shouting into a hurricane of realpolitik.

The UK's latest sanctions package targets mid-tier bureaucrats and Rosatom subsidiaries—symbolic gestures in a game of thermonuclear chess. Meanwhile, Zelenskyy circles the Munich Security Conference circuit, the geopolitical equivalent of a street performer collecting coins from indifferent passersby.