• solomon42069@lemmy.worldEnglish
    45·
    3 days ago

    Easy solution - new defence pact without USA and invite everyone else the Trumpian USA stiffed on defence like Australia.

    We (Australia) are already in Eurovision so a defence pact with Europe (and the UK lol) would make sense!

    • Sylvartas@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      4·
      2 days ago

      Didn’t Australia stiff themselves by trusting trump and cancelling french submarines ? Or are you referring to something else ?

      • azertyfun@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        6·
        1 day ago

        It was with Biden, in 2021. He truly went dark Brandon on that one, Macron and the entire French government learned about it through the news.

        Though the Australians did stiff themselves spectacularly. They will have to pay billions to the French with nothing to show for it, then billions more to the Americans for nuclear submarines which they could have gotten from the French if they hadn’t told them to design a diesel submarine based on their own nuclear design!! Except now Australia is tied to American nuclear fuel and maintenance, further vassalizing themselves. 5000 IQ move.

        Plus now the project is in the hands of Trump and his fox news host of a defense minister so uh good luck with that. By the 2040s I project they’ll have been officially integrated in the Russian chain of command and the submarines will be delivered to Australia in the form of perfect replicas of the Moskva.

    • TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.worldEnglish
      18·
      3 days ago

      Our collective terrible singing, worse than the siren of Stuka and more terrifying than the brrt of A-10, will surely deter the both the Americans and Russians.

    • Rusty@lemmy.caEnglish
      7·
      3 days ago

      Does Australia need EU help in case a Second Emu War breaks out?

    • SkunkWorkz@lemmy.worldEnglish
      82·
      3 days ago

      lol no way Europeans will cross half the planet to come to your defense in Emu War II.

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      36·
      3 days ago

      Why? Are you worried the US is going to pull everyone into war or something?

      My understanding is that people are annoyed at US actions outside of NATO, like positions WRT NATO, Trump/Musk nonsense domestically, etc. But are they worried the US won’t defend if a NATO country is attacked?

      I understand issues with the US as a trade partner, but you really want the biggest military on your side in a defensive pact.

      • optional@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        2·
        2 days ago

        Haven’t you watched the news in the last 5 weeks? How can you expect the USA to defend a NATO country while they themselves are the aggressor?

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          22·
          2 days ago

          Wait, has the US attacked someone in the last 5 weeks? From what I can tell, it’s just Trump doing Trump things, flapping his gums and trying to get NATO countries to honor their agreements. I’m not a fan of Trump, but I haven’t seen any evidence of the US actually attacking anyone, which is surprising because we usually have a war or two going on at all times.

          • optional@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            2·
            2 days ago

            He has threatened Canada that they’ll be the 51. US-State, he has threatened Denmark by saying he’ll “liberate” Greenland. A war of aggression usually doesn’t directly start by invading it, but with unrealisable claims and wrong accusations:

            • “Hand over Danzig” and “your troops are violating our border, we’re just protecting our border” before invading Poland in 1939
            • “Hand over these (non-existent) WMDs” and “Sadam was involved in 9/11, we’re just fighting terrorism” in 2003
            • “Crimea and Donbas shall be Russian” and “The government in Kyiv are Nazis, we’re just protecting the Russian minority” in 2014
            • “Canada shall be the 51. US state” and “Canadians are smuggling drugs into our country, we’re just protecting our border” in 2025
            • “We’re going to have Greenland” and “It’s for the protection of the free world, we’re just providing freedom to the Greenlanders” in 2025

            That’s how you talk to countries you’re planning to invade and not to countries you’re planning to protect from invasion.

            • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
              1·
              1 day ago

              The US isn’t going to invade Canada or Denmark, that’s just Trump talking all bravado and trying to get a deal with each. The US wants bases in the Arctic, and Canada and Greenland have land there. He’s teasing Trudeau and trying to broker a land deal with Denmark.

              The Iraq thing was completely stupid though. It was lumped in with the “War on Terror,” but it had nothing to do with terrorism. In fact, Saddam was doing a decent job keeping terrorism in check. I’m still confused about the actual goal there (pretty expensive just for oil…).

              • optional@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
                1·
                1 day ago

                The original question was

                But are they worried the US won’t defend if a NATO country is attacked?

                and I’m pretty sure the current US won’t. In fact, here’s my prediction on what will happen:

                In the upcoming weeks Trump and Putin will split the Ukraine between the two of them. Encouraged by that success, Putin will try to invade Finland in order to reinstate the Russian Empire. Most of NATO will of cause stand with Finland, but Trump (confusing Finland with Denmark, as no true American can tell these nordic countries apart) tries to make a deal: “If Finland wants our support, they must hand over Greenland”. As Finland obviously can’t do that, Trump will say: “Then we must invade Greenland before the Russians get it”. But confusing Greenland with Canada (as no true American can tell these nordic countries apart) he will actually invade Nova Scotia. TBH, I think this orange idiot is so clueless, he might actually try to invade Alaska, believing it to be Canada.

                • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
                  2·
                  1 day ago

                  Lol.

                  If we’re going to invade any part of Canada, I vote for British Columbia. We’ll tell him it’s west Washington DC, but Britain claimed it, so we need to take it back. It’s gorgeous up there.

            • queermunist she/her@lemmy.mlEnglish
              1·
              2 days ago

              That’s also how you talk to countries you’re trying to terrify into giving you greater concessions. The “art of the deal” is terrifying the other party with impossible demands and then negotiating down from there to something realistic, letting them think they avoided disaster. It creates an environment of fear and uncertainty, which forces his opponents to be cautious and fearful.

              I suppose there’s no way to know if he’s bluffing or if he’s being sincere, but that’s the point. He wants people to be afraid.

  • freebee@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    301·
    3 days ago

    It’s still a win-win. Sweden got the nuclear umbrella now (even with Trump because also France, UK), and Sweden brings a lot of conventional power to the weak east flank of the alliance (good for Baltics).

  • _stranger_@lemmy.worldEnglish
    24·
    3 days ago

    This is supposed to be what NATO is for, so that they all fight like cats in a boardroom instead of killing their citizens on the battlefield.

  • GissaMittJobb@lemmy.mlEnglish
    351·
    3 days ago

    The U.S-part of it turned to shit incredibly quickly, but at least the rest of the Alliance is still mostly sane. Given that no one in the alliance can rely on the U.S any more, we’ll all just have to up our defenses collectively, and that way, NATO still sort of works out.

    • lime!@feddit.nuEnglish
      101·
      3 days ago

      as long as it works on a full consensus system for decisions it’s a time bomb.

  • lime!@feddit.nuEnglish
    104·
    3 days ago

    bit too much enthusiasm on Troy’s face to match reality. we didn’t want to join. the current government didn’t promise joining during the elections. there was no referendum, and at no point during the past ten years would the join side have won if there was one.

    we had to remove trade barriers to get in. we put those up because we didn’t want to sell weapons to countries systematically violating human rights on their own soil.

    • Kecessa@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      8·
      3 days ago

      https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/majority-swedes-favour-joining-nato-poll-2022-03-04/

      2022 polls started showing a majority in favor with support increasing after that

      Majority of the Parliament was in favor since December 2020 (only MP truly against, V wanted a referendum) with elections happening in September 2022 (after applying in May), two years prior to officially joining… If Swedes were so against it then Andersson wouldn’t have gained seats during that election.

      • lime!@feddit.nuEnglish
        21·
        3 days ago

        seems i’ve been a bit mistaken. on page 68 of the GU SOM-census you can see the enormous shift in the public opinion. unfortunately it doesn’t go beyond 2022. i’d be interested in seeing how it changed through the application process. Officerstidningen says support went down after 2022 but they don’t have a graph.

        i still think it was a brexit-style peek above the surface for the join side, because the stuff we’ve had to give up to join has not been popular.