• redlemace@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 days ago

    A definitive break in transatlantic security relations would be a catastrophe, as it would likely mark the end of NATO as the most successful security alliance in history.

    Yes please, do break it up!

    1. USA has become so unreliable, we’ve lost all trust and respect.
    2. (Re)build something with democratic voting like 50%+1. (Or 75% if you have to) but no unanimous or veto’s. Those makes you dead in the waters
    • Zombie@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 days ago

      50%+1 isn’t democratic voting though, it’s tyranny of the majority.

      Consensus is democracy, especially when it comes to deciding things like war, sending millions to their deaths.

      For the often cited example of Hungary holding up the EU, the proper response is to discuss removing them from the group. If that leads nowhere then the bad faith member must be immediately removed. Not keep them in the group, but consistently overrule them because 51% of the group decided so.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association

    • woelkchen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 days ago

      NATO doesn’t need a breakup it just needs to stop relying on the US. All the other countries can just pretend the US aren’t there until a sane administration comes to power there.

      • redlemace@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 days ago

        pretend the US aren’t there

        impossible, because: a) all voting must be unanimous b) the us has a veto

        • woelkchen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 days ago

          impossible

          No.

          a) all voting must be unanimous b) the us has a veto

          So? That just means that NATO-labelled missions need US consent. All other countries could just keep do what they do without labeling it “NATO”. Not really that hard of a concept to grasp.

    • zout@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      5 days ago

      This is really a matter of willingness. Last time I checked my country (Netherlands) talked big but did little. More countries are like this, especially if the Russia payrolled right wing trolls got a foot hold.

      • atro_city@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 days ago

        Sure, if Europe had a common enemy and recognised it as such, it could fight against it. But Western Europe didn’t have to go through the subjugation of the USSR. It is the most affluent area on the planet. Many people don’t want to care about war but are more worried about which team won whatever it is they’re following, which gadget was released with the roundest corners, who’s who, and whether the pigment of somebody else’s skin is darker than theirs.

        With such a votership, politicians are too afraid to make any decisions that could jeopardise their role in power. Europe has been very successful at hiding the source of its wealth and security from its citizens. Slavery to get the cheapest clothing, food, or devices possible is openly accepted because “out of sight, out of mind”. Ukraine for most people is that. It has lead to citizens simply lacking empathy, understanding, and willpower to vote for the war to end.

        Given all of that, Europe can barely arm Ukraine. We are just too comfy in our position and cannot even imagine a single bomb dropping in one of capitals. The day it happens will be the day people understand.