Does an invasion/attack by one NATO member trigger an Article 5 response against that country by the remainder of NATO?
I am sure that this scenario has been imagined before (ahem Greece v. Turkey)
Unless countries like the UK and France are willing to deploy their militaries to fight US soldiers in Greenland, it doesn’t matter.
France is in no condition for any war, they could at most crackdown on tiny New Caledonia but have no strenght to do anything to Sahel states. UK military is in complete shambles. So not only they are unwilling to stand to USA but unable to.
Which, indeed, could mean the end of NATO. If it becomes clear that the “alliance” is basically you following the provisions when it serves the US and nobody following them when it doesn’t, what’s the point of all this legalese?
Yep I think NATO is effectively dead already. We don’t need to wait for the Greenland annexation for that to be the case.
The UK and France combined would have a problem if there was a single carrier parked in the North Atlantic. They might have a chance if all the US Carriers and subs were 2000 miles away.
There is nothing anyone except the US can do about a US annexation of Greenland, short of Nuclear weapons.
That’s what it says. At least, it does not make an exception for that scenario.
The usa could leave Nato and attack a nato country and Nato will do nothing about it
If only the working class across all nations had a defensive alliance. Oh you wanna go to war? General strike.
Fuck these imaginary lines on a map. We are a divided and conquered species.
I’m 100% sure that not even Denmark will leave NATO.
Ojalá
Let them eat each other.
Insallah the world will be freed
European leaders have backed Frederiksen while saying the US "is an essential partner."
COULD? how deeply is that boot lodged, jesus christ.
don’t threaten me with a good time like that
Yeah, that’s why Putin told Trump to do it.
Donald Trump likes this post.
NATO could end
Death to NATO, Death to the Axis of Satan
Europe may need to end the Russian invasion fast so they only have one front to fight on.
Fastest way is for Kiev to cede the 4 oblasts that already want to be a part of the Russian Federation anyways, and NATO neutrality.
Are there other places like these 4 oblasts that want to be a part of the Russian federation?
Generally they already are a part of the Russian Federation if they want to be.
Appreciate your reply.
Nah. I wish, but until now Europeans have shown no backbone at all against Trump. When the USA take Greenland, the Danish and Greenlanders are gonna be alone, because that’s what happens between NATO members in conflict. The USA, of course, designed it like that.
A UK general said it best. If the US invades Greenland, NATO will naturally dissolve, because it is solely based on trust. Break that trust and it’s over.
I bet NATO would have defended Greece against Turkey, but that’s different. Somehow.
Well, yes it is different.
Rare Trump win
Would be one of the most internationally positive outcomes of 2026 if NATO dissolves.
For whom
Everyone except the shits
for literally everyone except eurofash
The global south. NATO is the millitary alliance of the world’s imperialist powers, a destruction of millitary unity among imperialists would severely weaken imperialism.
I’m sure Ukraine, the Baltic trio and Poland agree with you.
Each one of these countries was in coalition of the willing, no? and zionist bootlicker extraordinaire as we can observe.
Considering they are aligned with the west, who plunder the world’s wealth through export of capital and unequal exchange, that’s not really surprising. Opposition to NATO is pretty basic among anti-imperialists and the global south in general.
God damn it, I hate my education system. I thought NATO was the peacekeeper of the world — a valuable residue of WWII. One sided propaganda-based education developed to fuel a belief in American exceptionalism and nationalistic egoism. This education-level propaganda is pretty effective because you don’t actually know what details to question, and so you grow up with some pretty bold assumptions about how the world works (and don’t even realize it). They had me believing Christopher Columbus was some kind of messiah-explorer too.
How does this happen? My anti-conspiracy brain wants to believe there’s no such thing as an evil man behind the curtain, twisting his mustache and orchestrating these details like ”meh, we need to make sure all the kids believe in this propaganda such that we have an imperialistic society.” So, short of that, how does this happen so effectively?
2 major factors: In any given society, the mode of production is reinforced by the culture, laws, and ideology of said mode of production. Secondly, people license themselves to believe that whatever they think benefits them is good. Capitalism reinforces ideas like individualism, NATO is good, etc, and we go along with it until our material conditions force us into seeing a new reflection of reality, be it at the workplace, or seeing hard evidence online, being the victim of a bombing campaign, etc. It isn’t a man behind the curtain, but capital and the capitalist class.
It happens because it makes rich people richer
Yeah but the opinions of pro-Apartheid colonialist sympathizers are nothing but noise contaminated with hitler particles.
Nato is an imperialist alliance that was created to fight imperalist USSR. Many of the funding countries was still colonizing other countries when it was created. Nato also destroyed Lybia which is the clearest example of it not being just a defensive alliance. Nato also collaborate with Israel who hold the longest current occupation, again has nothing to do with Europe protection.
The US could leave Nato today, attack a Nato country and Nato will do nothing about it
One major correction, the USSR was anti-imperialist, which is why the imperialists collaborated to oppose them. Their colonies were in danger of liberation due to the soviets aiding anti-imperialist movements.
If the USSR was anti-imperialist it wouldn’t have been involved in Afghanistan
Imperialism : a policy of extending a country’s power and influence through diplomacy or military force.
I think it should be self evident why that definition is bullshit
Comparing Afghanistan to 500 years of European colonialism is an interesting strategy.
That’s not what socialists mean by imperialism, by that vibes-based definition defeating Nazi Germany was “imperialism.” Imperialism is instead a form of international exploitation characterized by dominance of monopoly finance capital, export of capital, and super-exploiting the global south for super profits. Spreading socialism is anti-imperialist.
“only white europeans matter”
Many countries around the world
Libya: The forgotten victims of NATO strikes - Amnesty International
Do you that think those strikes wouldn’t have happened without NATO?
Yes, but even if it would have happened anyways the world would still be better off without NATO.
That’s a pretty difficult claim to support because it requires you to make some pretty insane assumptions about what would have happened without NATO.
It’s not difficult (except for Europeans and their settler counterpart) to understand that the world would be better off without NATO, your whiteness. “If it weren’t for NATO then it would’ve been anyone else!” isn’t the convincing claim you think it is. The burden of supporting such chickenshit non-claim is on you.
You now all the countries that joined NATO would still exist without it, right?
How so? Didn’t NATO commit crimes? The fact other criminals exist doesn’t mean one fewer criminal gang isn’t an improvement.
Which NATO country do you think couldn’t have committed all those crimes without the rest of NATO?
The world in general
Humanity
