NATO chief says some European allies were tested and failed in Iran war
Posted by BabylonianWeeb@reddit | anime_titties | View on Reddit | 174 comments
Posted by BabylonianWeeb@reddit | anime_titties | View on Reddit | 174 comments
Apart-Apple-Red@reddit
NATO chief is an idiot or he is just repeating what his masters in the USA are telling him to say.
NATO is a defensive pact in which members support each other in case of attack. USA wasn't attacked. USA was the attacker.
NATO doesn't apply here and that's by the pact design.
Otherwise every member could pull everyone else into every and any conflict.
Just think for a moment what we just witnessed here in the Iran and in the media.
2stepsfromglory@reddit
Is this really surprising? Rutte's breath must smell like Trump's ass by now. He's the textbook definition of a bootlicker.
Apart-Apple-Red@reddit
Oh, I know. That was known even when he was just a candidate for the role.
However, the audacity, the lies, it is astonishing.
Maardten@reddit
Imagine what it was like living with him as PM for over a decade.
The guy is such a bald-faced liar that one of his most memorable quotes is "Daar heb ik geen actieve herinnering aan" ("I have no active recollection of that."), which has become synonymous to: "You and me both know that I am guilty but I am going to lie in your face about it anyway."
sogladatwork@reddit
“No active recollection” = I refuse to try to recall
Silberbaum@reddit
Funny, in germany Helmut Kohl said a very similar thing about the donation scandal in the CDU. Sleazy bastards are everywhere. XD
Otis_Inf@reddit
please don't remind me. I was so happy he fucked off after all the shit he put us through... only to take the job of the secretary general of Nato... :X
He's called teflon mark for a reason
rscarrab@reddit
Haha "active" recollection. As in, it could activate later and then yes, I guess that did happen. But when you originally asked me the memory just wasn't active so, not really my fault.
It's like Donald Rumsfeld levels of bullshittery.
ChauvinistPenguin@reddit
They missed a trick by not having Ben Wallace as SG. Despite the fact that he's a Tory bastard, he often tells it like it is, even to his own detriment.
azure_beauty@reddit
His job is to lick trump's boot until the midterms come around and he loses his power. It's not pretty, but it's better than the collapse of NATO.
Javeeik@reddit
lol yea came to say exactly this, he’s a bit stuck and got to run damage control really
TraditionalGap1@reddit
It's truly impressive how nobody seems to understand this natural continuation of the same strategy he's been employing this whole time. And how quick everyone is to judge his tactics without bothering to wait to see the outcome
azure_beauty@reddit
I can't tell if you're referring to Rutte or to trump lol
TraditionalGap1@reddit
Rutte. I don't believe Trump actually has a strategy here and Rutte just wants to keep the US part of NATO until the midterms and the GOP losing control of the house
azure_beauty@reddit
I don't believe trump has any consistent strategies, but "threaten something insane in hopes someone caves in a desperate attempt to retain normalcy and then walk back your threats as if they never happened" has been a pretty long running Trump-tactic.
Worth_Garbage_4471@reddit
Wait what is this ass to boot oh never mind
TraditionalGap1@reddit
If the other option is the death of NATO...
AuntOfManyUncles@reddit
If the choices are the death of a treaty or indulging any or every whim of a sundowning fascist then maybe it deserves to die
TraditionalGap1@reddit
I'm sorry, what 'whim' has NATO indulged?
helio97@reddit
Afghanistan? Libya?
TraditionalGap1@reddit
We're pretty obviously discussing the situation around Trump specifically. Would it be at all possible for you to stick within the parameters of the discussion actually being had or is that too much to expect
sailing_by_the_lee@reddit
Even worse. He's a bootlicking Quisling.
moonorplanet@reddit
For Rutte it's Daddy Trump
PlutosGrasp@reddit
I think he’s bootlicking for the greater good though. He’s basically shaming NATO members so trump doesn’t have to, so trump doesn’t feel as eager to leave NATO.
chillichampion@reddit
“Defensive pact”
siorge@reddit
what do you mean?
kinmix@reddit
Well, the head of NATO - Mark Rutte said, that NATO "is a platform for the US to project power on the world stage"... Can't be any more clear than that...
ShootmansNC@reddit
He's a worm but at least he's honest about the purpose of NATO.
crusadertank@reddit
NATO was not defending themselves by bombing Yugoslavia or Libya.
sigmaluckynine@reddit
Pretty sure NATO wasn't involved in either but NATO members did join due to long standing relations. A small but big difference
crusadertank@reddit
According to NATOs website, you are incorrect
Yugoslavia
Libya
sigmaluckynine@reddit
I'm not sure why I have to clarify. NATO did not get involved formally. That's why I'm saying it's a small but big difference. NATO members joined together but NATO as a treaty and organization did not. There was only one Instance of it and that was Afghanistan
I.e. NATO in official capacity did not by using any of it's Charter requirements, which is the point of this conversation
historicusXIII@reddit
The difference is that back then NATO countries first co-ordinated before intervening. It wasn't just one country going in and demanding others follow suit.
KronusTempus@reddit
NATO bombing Serbian power plants to (as the Air Force commander put it) to distress the public enough to undermine their support for their government is different! You don’t get it! That’s for democracy!
/s fkn obviously
Magjee@reddit
The US purposefully bombed the Chinese Embassy in the follow-up Kosovo War that NATO participated in
studentoo925@reddit
libya is, was and will be controversial to say the least, but come on. If serbs could not be genocidal maniacs for 5 minutes there wouldn't be a need for UN to ask for volounteers to intervene
Caffeywasright@reddit
It’s funny how people both want to play world police and at the same time is vehemently against it
crusadertank@reddit
Whether you consider it justified or not doesn't change that it wasn't a defensive war for NATO
Plus NATO didn't get UN backing for their campaign in Yugoslavia
Flaksim@reddit
It was more multiple countries within NATO got together and agreed that something had to be done, then they used the existing NATO framework to execute, which makes sense, why come up with a new command structure out of the blue. Those actions were also close to NATO territory.
In what we saw here with Iran, one NATO country decided to go and bomb the shit out of a far off country and then turned around and expected all the others to come join in at his behest.
Random0732@reddit
NATO was obviously attacking, but the UN's previous actions in the region were, let's say...far too defensive.
UN approval would have been a surprise considering the veto power.
Jam03t@reddit
NATO didn't bomb Libya, and it bombed Yugoslavia or Serbia, in connection with the UN resolutions.
moonorplanet@reddit
2011 military intervention in Libya
crusadertank@reddit
This isn't a secret, NATO absolutely did bomb Libya and don't hide it. They just try to justify why they did it
Then you should have no problem giving that UN resolution
Because no, they didn't have UN backing for the bombing
And in any case it's not defensive
stoiclandcreature69@reddit
Or Afghanistan. The Taliban didn’t attack the US
WhoAmIEven2@reddit
He's most likely a serbian still butthurt that they weren't allowed to commit genocide on serbians and kosovo albanians.
chillichampion@reddit
Yeah you sure do care about genocides while arming Israel🤡
bxzidff@reddit
Does Sweden arm Israel any more than the Muslim allies in the Gulf do?
chillichampion@reddit
“Muslim allies”, they’re US puppets and by extension Israel’s, not to mention horrific despotic regimes. So pretending to care about genocide is bs.
bxzidff@reddit
Yes, Gulf allies of Israel
Neurobeak@reddit
As per UN, there was no genocide in Kosovo
thecoastertoaster@reddit
sounds like NATO chief went to Epstein island.
22stanmanplanjam11@reddit
Not supporting the US in the Iran war isn’t the problem, denying the US access to their airspace and joint bases is the problem. That’s new.
Apart-Apple-Red@reddit
Good. Either the USA wants allies or slaves.
22stanmanplanjam11@reddit
I don't understand why you think that logically follows. Allowing the use of your airspace isn't servitude. Allowing the use of joint bases that are partially funded by the US isn't servitude.
Apart-Apple-Red@reddit
In this case, it is. Especially the way it is demanded.
This is war started by Israel and USA with no consultation with allies. And nobody in NATO should help in Israel and USA war crimes they currently conduct in Iran.
22stanmanplanjam11@reddit
What demand? Every country that's denied American access to their airspace has had that decision respected. All military action in the Iran war has been conducted by going out of the way and relying more heavily on Gulf allies. It's just an annoyance.
GameDoesntStop@reddit
The strait of hormuz was (and still is) threatened, effectively attacking the economies of every country on Earth, meaning every NATO country.
NATO countries shouldn't be expected to get involved in Iran, except regarding the opening of the strait. Every NATO member should be bearing down on Iran for that. When it is open, the rest of NATO can pack up and go home, and the US can fight the war itself.
FRIENDLY_FBI_AGENT_@reddit
And what incident caused the threat to economies of all the countries?
Why should Nato countries be involved in opening of Strait and not in stopping the attacker who is invading a sovereign nation.
What gives them right to do so? A country is fighting for survival. Shouldn't Nato be sanctioning the invader?
GameDoesntStop@reddit
Iran attacking third-party commercial vessels crossing the strait.
NATO is a defensive alliance, not the world police. NATO countries' economies are being threatened by Iran's closure of the strait.
Is that really such a hard concept for you?
Stubbs94@reddit
So they should force their warmongering allies to stop the attacks on Iran then. Iran is a country being attacked by two of the largest militaries in the world, I don't see why it's their fault that they need to go to extreme measures to try and leverage peace. They have been restrained regardless.
Competitive-War-1143@reddit
You didn't answer my question- how are you able to comment every single hour of every day
Stubbs94@reddit
Quiet days at work, ADHD and insomnia.
FRIENDLY_FBI_AGENT_@reddit
Hmmm. For decades this hasn't happened. Why suddenly did they do this? I wonder what changed?
And which country started all this message? 2 month ago, no country was facing this mess. What has happened that lead to Iran blocking strait? Can you spell it out please
GameDoesntStop@reddit
You seem bizarrely intent on blaming countries that aren't blocking the strait... rather than the country that is blocking the strait.
FRIENDLY_FBI_AGENT_@reddit
I'm trying to find out what incident led to strait being blocked. You however seem to be hell bent on denying what started all this.
Let's dumb it down.... When you get a fever, when you get a fungal infection, itching is a side effect. Not the cause. Cause is fungus....
So, what is the main cause? What triggered iran to close the strait... common....spell it out
Apart-Apple-Red@reddit
USA is responsible for the closure of the strait despite Iran physically blocking it. We can't block Iran for that as that's one of not many advantages Iran has.
In fact, according to your logic NATO should discipline Israel and USA for acting like fanatical Nazi Germany and crazy Russia respectively.
GameDoesntStop@reddit
"Look what you made me do"
The nonsense of that statement aside, the US and Israel are not attacking NATO members like Iran is.
Apart-Apple-Red@reddit
Yes, pretty much. But without unnecessary emotional attachment.
We can't blame Iran for this action. Everyone in their shoes would do the same if their existence was in question.
Well, actually they are because their actions influence all the NATO countries mentioned by my interlocutor. Hence I used words "according to your logic"
Honey, learn to read.
TWVer@reddit
He isn’t an idiot. He is deliberately brown nosing Trump, to get Trump to do as much as possible as what is in the collective interest of NATO, which includes keeping the US onboard and have the US not falter in delivering weapons to Ukraine, which are paid for by Europe.
He’s playing the “good cop”-role, while the leaders of individual nations, i.e. Macron, etc., get to publicly criticize Trump.
kinmix@reddit
Look at his previous career, he is an idiot who's only skill is to tell people what they want to hear, there is no deeper agenda.
Apart-Apple-Red@reddit
That's interesting and gives some hope. I wish I were as optimistic as you are 🙂
TWVer@reddit
I’m not saying Rutte will (always) have success, by doing this, but this kind of game is his forté, even if that makes him look unserious to the general public.
He doesn’t care if he has to look like a fool doing so, if it leads to the result he is seeking.
Trump is very receptive to being flattered often and consistently, which is why Rutte has adopted this strategy from the outset.
This even lead to Trump publicly praising him yesterday.
However, be assured Rutte is very much in touch with what every European nation wants, with the threat Russia still is posing. Especially to the Baltics.
ChefCurryYumYum@reddit
He's not an idiot. He's trying to keep the NATO alliance together and that means appeasing Trump to some degree.
Amadon29@reddit
At the end of the day, it's still a military alliance and not just a defensive pact. Article 5 has only been invoked once following the 9/11 attacks. Do you think nato just did absolutely nothing before that? Do you think countries within nato didn't support each other logistically or in other ways?
And if you read the article, there wasn't an expectation for nato countries to get involved in the war directly by sending troops or ships, or launching missiles. It was just logistical support like sure you can use that airspace or you can use this base. The cost is minimal. Most nato countries did the bare minimum in that regard.
Apart-Apple-Red@reddit
What were the expectations is really not easy to say as Trump was quite clear he doesn't need anyone only to complain the next day nobody helped him in war he allegedly already won.
As you can see, there's plenty of ridiculous things already here.
However, I don't understand how dare you to ask for help to bomb schools and use double tap trap when bombing civilian infrastructure like USA did. You need allies for that?
Bloody hell. That's dirty beyond reason.
Btw, NATO did help USA a lot. Did USA ever aaud thank you?
Able-Swing-6415@reddit
Idk seems like the US and every country enabling them logistically has failed miserably but I see why you would think that isn't what he meant..
Dreadedvegas@reddit
The reason Rutte was made NATO Gen Sec was to keep the US invested.
Its no secret that NATO skepticism in the US is on the rise.
Apart-Apple-Red@reddit
True true. But at this point NATO is dysfunctional anyway. Greenland was the first attempt to destroy NATO and the mission was successful. This organisation is a walking zombie at this stage and a liability.
Trump and Rutte are demonstrating exactly this by their ridiculous demands and statements.
Dreadedvegas@reddit
NATO has been a zombie organization for a long time.
In my opinion, I went from being rather pro-NATO to a NATO skeptic with the Ukraine war. I just felt like the organization should have been doing a lot more. More attaches, more observers, and also the general response from all NATO countries to Ukraine was that of institutional lethargy where it was more talk than it was action.
It would be better in the long term for the US to pull back from NATO, I think Europe not being able to rely on the US is a good thing as I personally view Europe has consistently underinvested for decades at this point and the US has overinvested in its European commitments. I think the organizational structure has promoted bloat, promoted underinvestment, and promoted resistance to real change. Thats not to say there aren't good things that both sides of NATO are doing. Its just the need for consensus driving has imo inhibited the ability of the organization to properly respond to crisis (Cyberattacks on NATO allies, gray warfare by Russia, actual warfare by Russia, etc).
I think Trump is a massive problem, but my criticisms of NATO as an organization has been the same even when Biden was president, or Obama or Bush. I just thought it was still worth preserving and that we could reform it. I don't think we can do that anymore.
I also think we're at a point where Europe & the United States just do not understand each other anymore. I think this generations leadership has sold themselves a view of the organization that does not exist and when something happens that view does not reflect reality about the actual transactionalism of the alliance. I think this is how Western-aligned Asian countries really do understand how to operate with America better than Europe does (which is partially why SEATO doesn't exist anymore and why nobody tried to revive it).
Manndeufel@reddit
In Germany we have a word for that kind of people "Arschkriecher".
Birds_are_Drones@reddit
This clown will say whatever yields himself the most gain. As PM of the Netherlands he was a lying and scandal machine, pumping them out daily
archaeo_verified@reddit
what a worthless shitbird
Blackout38@reddit
He was put there because he was Trump’s favorite European leader during his last term. The hope is that he can hold the alliance together through Trump’s term so yeah he’s gunna toe the line to hold the alliance together so it outlives Trump.
4latar@reddit
the trump saying that this is not a war so congress doesn't need to authorize it, but at the same time this is a war that NATO needs to help with.
nevermind the fact that NATO is a defensive alliance and that even when it's triggered countries only need to take "such action as [the member state] deems necessary", so they can do basically nothing and still be technically in the right.
this is a child throwing a tantrum because they couldn't bully everyone into doing their dirty work for them.
AMeasuredBerserker@reddit
Just further proof that NATO has never been a collective defensive agreement and it is just another tool of US state.
The whole world needs to wake up to the fact that American power is now being aggressively used for America's own interests. America is is done hiding beneath the veneer of freedom and is now overtly out to profit and exploit anything it can.
kolitics@reddit
That or NATO should just realize how relevant a nuclear Iran would be in a conflict with the country that is already invaded halfway into Ukraine.
AMeasuredBerserker@reddit
Not sure what that's supposed to mean? A nuclear Iran is somehow a boon for Russia and their thousands of nuclear weapons?
kolitics@reddit
Yes, in a number of ways. One is the ability to jointly cut off energy for Europe. With nukes they entrench power against efforts that might prevent this.
AMeasuredBerserker@reddit
Considering that things have only gotten worse with the US unilateral action, not sure I follow.
Hormuz wasn't even used as a bargaining chip by Iran untill USA decided to destroy the world economy to benefit themselves in a pure war of aggression.
kolitics@reddit
To put another way, we are forgetting the world part of the world war NATO as a defensive pact is meant to defend against. Securing strategic resources and locations isn't exactly new. While hormuz was uncontested in prior conflicts, similar waterways were. UK defended the suez from Germany in WWII. A war with Russia would have different parties, and different contested resource routes. Pull up a map and guess whether Hormuz would be one of them.
AMeasuredBerserker@reddit
I think you might want to read the NATO charter and realise what the purpose of NATO is supposed to be (and the land covered by it).
You also clearly dont know your history or you wouldn't have brough Suez up.
Suez was famously nationalised, intervened by UK, France and Israel and the US and the USSR made sure it never turned to a serious war and sided with Egypt.
kolitics@reddit
I suppose we can just ask Russia to stay within the region covered by the charter should they invoke article 5 and only then begin strategically positioning to engage in such a conflict.
How does a subsequent nationalization make it not of strategic importance in we2 with implications to similar waterways in a future conflict?
AMeasuredBerserker@reddit
Russia is in a war with Ukraine in which they are rapidly becoming war exhausted. They are not a serious threat and even if they were, nothing has changed with regards to nuclear war.
There is no reason that US needs or requires any help in their war of choice.
The US is as of current, the biggest threat to the world, not Iran.
kolitics@reddit
Very short term thinking on a country that just secured an invasion corridor into Europe and a another that could entrench on hormuz with nuclear weapons and shut it down for 30 years of they don’t like how the conflict is going.
AMeasuredBerserker@reddit
Hormuz is already shut and entrenched. It wasn't shut before. This war has made everything worse and European support wouldn't change a single thing. It didn't work in Iraq. It didn't work in Afghanistan. It didn't work in Vietnam.
How many times must the same lesson be taught?
kolitics@reddit
Better dealt with now while russia is spent as you say and Iran has unrest than in an article 5 conflict with russia. If you think they are entrenched now wait until you have to cross their combined frontline with the west, that is almost a straight line from the arctic circle to the indian ocean, to do anything about it which will be a harsher lesson if they have nukes.
AMeasuredBerserker@reddit
This is pure fantasy.
I really encourage you to check whatever sources you are using and realise just how silly all this sounds.
I more worried about whatever the US and Israel is going to do next than anyone else.
kolitics@reddit
Perhaps google maps is wrong but you can pretty much extend Russia’s border down to Iran’s border and see how such a conflict would unfold if they cooperate with their neighbors across the caspian.
turbo-unicorn@reddit
Welp, time to get my downvotes. FWIW, I am not a fan of Rutte - saw enough of him as PM, and would've greatly preferred Kallas or Sikorski as NATO secretary.
That being said, in the current context, I think he's doing the right thing. We all know what he's saying is BS, but everything he says has an audience of 1, and that is Trump. It's all designed to mollify him into not taking an actively harmful role against NATO/UA, something that Trump is very much inclined to do (see Greenland, "if only UA surrendered, we could do business with Russia", etc.)
I don't think many people realise that EU is just an unhinged moment away from being wardecced by a RU/US alliance - something that is becoming increasingly likely as Hegseth's purges of the non-obedient officers continue.
Private_HughMan@reddit
What a spineless worm of a man. NATO actually did good here. The US doesn't get to just walk up and punch random big guys in the bar and demand we help once they're getting their shit rocked. America started this fight. This is a war of choice. They chose it.
MaestroRozen@reddit
To be honest, US usually punches downwards and NATO follows like good little lapdogs that they are. It's just that this time ths US overestimated itself, resulting in a major shipping line being closed which actually hit the Western leaders in the only place where it hurts them : their pockets. So now they suddenly discovered morals, and it happening at the same time they're financially threatened by US' warmongering is a complete coincidence.
context_hell@reddit
Isn't this the same guy that literally called trump daddy?
ShootmansNC@reddit
He also recently said that "NATO is a platform for the US to project power on the world stage".
He's a worm but at least he's honest about the purpose of NATO.
Private_HughMan@reddit
The very same!
babyoil4diddy@reddit
The test wasn't of NATO rules but whether NATO is worth supporting. America has all these bases throughout NATO countries so they can use them. When countries deny use of airspace they're effectively shutting down the American airbases.
So may as well shut down the American bases.
Removes the easy logistical system to respond to threats.
dingleberry2025@reddit
The joke is the US thinks only NATO benefits from it and not the other way around.
If you shut down your bases in Europe how will you secure the middle east after you saw what Iran is capable of doing to the bases within it's reach ?
NATO allows the US to extend it's reach, is also 1/3 of the MIC source of income.
If trump attempts to pull out of NATO it's not TM just the Europeans who would be at his throat but every single billionaire in the military industrial complex two.
so every base the US closes it is merely shooting it's self in the foot.
babyoil4diddy@reddit
And if the middle east is insecure.... China doesn't get oil? We don't use Iranian Oil.
R6ckStar@reddit
It is still territory owned and managed by the countries not the US.
They want to use those bases they better ask for permission and make sure they are actually following the law.
The US went into this mess without even consulting their allies and expects to use our airspace put our citizens in danger to start and offensive war.
Screw your entitlement.
Also in your analogy it's the same as you wanting to use your land to commit murder and have the police show up and say no.
bimbosoupqueen@reddit
The U.S. is pretty isolated and far away from most countries we’ve been bombing. Europe is not. We’re bombing away knowing Iran can’t reach the U.S. mainland. But they likely have missiles that can reach Europe, and we don’t fully know to what extent. Plus they’ve showed that they won’t hesitate to bomb the shit out of US proxies.
Most Americans have no concept of war reaching home and we’re showing it.
JConRed@reddit
Just leave then. The USA is no longer welcome.
babyoil4diddy@reddit
That's what I'm saying
anticomet@reddit
Can't really say those airbases are used for defense when america wants to use them to bomb kids though
Chipay@reddit
"What's the point of European bases if we can't use them to bomb children?"
NeonArlecchino@reddit
Can you think of a more effective way of transferring the wealth of the people to the accounts of the wealthy than the military industrial complex?
Chipay@reddit
Putting tariffs on literally everything but datacenter parts?
NeonArlecchino@reddit
That's not nearly as threatening or decorative and the proletariat will notice that.
Lower_Cockroach2432@reddit
You've already explicitly stated you won't defend NATO. Make it explicit and leave already.
It's silly to get upset we won't help you only a few months after literally threatening to invade a NATO country.
Chipay@reddit
This x100, Americans are acting as if this move came out of the blue. Trump has been very clear that the US views alliances as transactional now. What has the US offered? Tariffs, cessation of aid, disrespect towards former war contributions, the fostering of anti-democratic parties, and threats of invasion.
It's unsurprising some European nations have been answering in kind.
Dirkdeking@reddit
Their is a difference between not actively participating in the war with our own troops and assets, and actively blocking US acces to their bases on our territory and our airspace.
The first is totally reasonable. I don't want our troops to be a part of this mess. The second is causing unnecessary tensions at a time we need to keep the US on board until at least 2028.
It costs nothing to let them use their bases and our airspace for their war. That is all up to them. It simply isn't worth bleeding political capital over.
R6ckStar@reddit
Using our bases and airspace for offensive is a defacto entry into a war.
There is a reason no one allows Ukraine to target Russian using NATO airspace.
The hegemonic power that the US had for 30 years really removed a lot of context to what is happening.
Stufilover69@reddit
It is if we need to make a deal with Iran if they keep the strait of Hormuz closed
Private_HughMan@reddit
"Just let the Nazis march through our territory to fight their war. We need Germany on board and its not worth bleeding political capital."
Fuck, we really are just a bunch of vassals, aren't we? So many people are clamouring to be America's serfs. It's pathetic.
Moonlight_Brawl@reddit
It’s fucking human life you piece of shit, what the fuck
KronusTempus@reddit
He did the Greenland thing again a few hours ago
Private_HughMan@reddit
"We're so good to you! Remember all those times I said I might take you by force and you can't stop me, but then I didn't? You owe me!"
Paquetty@reddit
Not for illegal wars of choice that tank global energy markets. You'd have to be an idiot of the highest degree to think that Nato members would allow their airspace to be used for an uncoordinated illegal war only months after the Americans threatened to invade Greenland.
Neurobeak@reddit
I won't stop repeating this - some NATO members would, Lithuania and Estonia said that they will help the US in their war if asked, and the Brits are allowing their airspace to be used against Iran.
Apart-Apple-Red@reddit
That wasn't a good test because NATO shouldn't be used to attack anyone unprovoked and NATO shouldn't be used to conduct war crimes like Trump and Israel do to this day.
TomTomXD1234@reddit
America also threatened to invade greenland, a NATO country.
I dont think how america feels about NATO matters much ATM.
EU would not lose sleep over american bases being shut down.
Suasx@reddit
God please yes get those bases out of Europe. Tired of hearing the argument we are free loading defense (great defense of the gulf states btw) when its all for their power projection.
Good riddance.
m5lemeso@reddit
Lol a 7 month old account parroting MAGA bullshit
KronusTempus@reddit
What threat exactly did Iran pose to the United States? If anything, they’ve gone out of their way to remain diplomatic.
Private_HughMan@reddit
The point of those bases is DEFENCE. Not so you can bomb kids from every corner of the world whenever you want. If those countries let the US launch attacks or provide war support from those bases, that would invite attacks against those bases. They don't want to be drawn into another American war in the Middle East.
This is more akin to a renter demanding that the landlord permit him to use the apartment as a base of operations for a gang war.
Learn to stop being terrorists.
Nom-De-Gruyere@reddit
What people need to understand about Mark Rutte is that he is a professional fluffer. He will give political head to anyone if it will make them easier to deal with and to achieve his political goals. This is how he remained prime minister of the Netherlands for so long, where there are many political factions that always argue with each other. Smooth verbal handjobs all round until everyone is happy and agreements can be made. This why he has the job and nobody should take what he says too seriously, it's entirely to please the people he has to deal with.
Altruistic_Finger669@reddit
He isnt pleasing anybody in europe
TraditionalGap1@reddit
A politician who acts like a politician? How dare he
Edrill@reddit
Rutte was a piece of shit then and he remains a piece of shit now.
somethingbrite@reddit
Rutte is unfit for the role. Does he think that NATO allies failed during the Vietnam War (which they also didn't participate in)
How about the Falklands war (where actually a NATO member DID have it's territory attacked but NATO didn't help)
The-Board-Chairman@reddit
No, saying stuff like this is exactly why he is fit for the role. Appeasing the US - that is to say Trump - through cheap rethoric is essentially the job description.
context_hell@reddit
He's in the perfect position to kiss Daddy trump's ass. The spineless worm he is.
The-Board-Chairman@reddit
Yes, that is his job.
TraditionalGap1@reddit
It's crazy to me how few people actually understand what Rutte is doing (or trying to do) here.
ERG_S@reddit
Nato borders are well defined in the treaty, north atlantic, europe, us , canada. Not even Hawaii is in the treaty. All other areas of earth are outside the treaty
noddyneddy@reddit
So, as Iran doesn’t border the Atlantic, NATO didn’t need to be involved..?
Monkfich@reddit
Rutte did well until this. His job before this was to calm Trump down and keep him on side. That’s easy to do when we talk about a defensive alliance.
Now it’s a war of choice and that means NATO is not relevant. Rutte knows that but still tries to keep Trump onside… by throwing everyone else under the bus. NATO under the bus. He better react better in the future as this isn’t going to keep Trump contained - this will just egg him on.
TraditionalGap1@reddit
So he did well by calming Trump down and keeping him on side but now that he's checks notes calming Trump down and keeping him on side he's suddenly gone to far?
Monkfich@reddit
Trump isn’t on side anymore. Do you think Trump is happy with NATO at the moment?
TraditionalGap1@reddit
I'm sorry I wasn't aware that the US had pulled out of NATO
Monkfich@reddit
You’re being silly now, for what purpose I can’t tell except for trolling.
TraditionalGap1@reddit
I'm not sure what part of this is so difficult to understand or comprehend. If you're the head of NATO, your number one concern right now is keeping the United States in NATO. It doesn't take a diplomatic genius to understand the strategy that Rutte is following here; over the top flattery isn't exactly a novel or unique technique. Nor are Trumps threats to leave NATO novel either; that's been one of his talking points for over a decade at this point.
It would be 'silly' to claim that Rutte has failed or that Trump is 'offside' until and unless the US actually leaves NATO. If Rutte rhetorically sucking off Trump helps keep the US in NATO until Trump is gone it would be hard to argue he failed at his job to, as you put it, 'calm Trump down and keep him on side'.
Monkfich@reddit
We know what Rutte did in the past and can see the logic in that, but there is no apparent logic in what is currently doing. Sure, Trump smiles at Rutte, but Rutte is putting NATO more at risk. He isn’t playing 4D chess or whatever the idiots online something think Trump is doing. Trump also has a famously short memory, changing his mind when different voices speak to him.
There is no appetite in Europe to come closer to Trump on any of this. The UK has buckled a bit unfortunately, but the EU is not impressed with Trump, and they won’t be impressed with Rutte’s comments, confirming to Trump that they failed to support when they “should” have.
So no, this is not a good direction, and we’d be foolish to think that leaders of organisations are infallible. That is what Trump’s people believe, but if we’re all going to get out of this intact, we need people to be able to bend when needed and also to be able to stand firm.
Which of us are right? Tbd as Trump is erratic, but what people say to him matters. To think otherwise is trolling.
TraditionalGap1@reddit
Don't be silly, The logic is still the same here: keep the US in NATO and onboard with as much of NATOs agenda as possible by flattering Trump. Nor has Rutte meaningfully changed the way he goes about doing that; they didn't start calling him the Trump whisperer for nothing.
Don't make the mistake of assuming that because you don't agree with the logic or how Rutte is going about it that there must no longer be any logic.
Are you really going to sit there and tell me that flattering Trump puts NATO more at risk? More at risk of what?
Until and unless the US actually exits NATO? Pretty sure I and Mark Rutte are
Monkfich@reddit
Logic yes, but I see you can’t evaluate the potential outcomes. Of course Rutte wants the US to stay - that doesn’t mean he can make good choices sometimes, and bad other times. You’re not able to compare objectively even why previous approach was likely to work vs now. That’s fine, I’m at the end of this conversation.
“Flattering Trump”? You’ve missed the mark entirely if thats what you are focusing on. The point is that in his current attempt to appease, Rutte has thrown the NATO allies under the bus. Maybe it’s this phrase you don’t understand, I’m not sure anymore really.
Your bit about “…Exits NATO”? If we had people involved in anything meaningful that were incapable of assessing likely outcomes, other people would be able to manipulate them. Let’s not be those people.
TraditionalGap1@reddit
I see you can't stick to a single set of goal posts nor can you accurately interpret the argument you're being presented with.
I am not making a judgement on the quality of the logic. I am not saying it is objectively (or subjectively) a good or bad strategy. I am saying that, agree with the logic or not, there is still logic.
Stop treating everything as a fucking soapbox
Monkfich@reddit
Logic yes, but I see you can’t evaluate the potential outcomes. Of course Rutte wants the US to stay - that doesn’t mean he can make good choices sometimes, and bad other times. You’re not able to compare objectively even why previous approach was likely to work vs now. That’s fine, I’m at the end of this conversation.
“Flattering Trump”? You’ve missed the mark entirely if thats what you are focusing on. The point is that in his current attempt to appease, Rutte has thrown the NATO allies under the bus. Maybe it’s this phrase you don’t understand, I’m not sure anymore really.
Your bit about “…Exits NATO”? If we had people involved in anything meaningful that were incapable of assessing likely outcomes, other people would be able to manipulate them. Let’s not be those people.
bluecheese2040@reddit
Wonder if his tonsils are still swimming after taking trump.
The irgc is an evil regime...but it didn't attack nato. Why should we have gotten involved?
When non nato Argentina attacked thr Falklands...we didn't expect nato.to help. It was an us problem.
Rutte...von der leyen...all of them at that level in Europe are just useless.
Trollimperator@reddit
This idiot could keep his mouth shut and noone would lose anything of value. His constant asslicking while doing very little of substance is just not helpful at all.
This guy asks for 5% of every income the country has and still talks like this. Like we have nothing else to do, then pay off his vassal ideas.
Xtrems876@reddit
Iran is not part of NATO and as such the alliance has no obligation to defend it against the attacker. No idea what else Rutte might be implying so I just wanted to clarify this since he might not be aware.
cloud_t@reddit
His mental gymnastics are likely about how defending the straight of Hormuz as essential for NATO sovereignty.
...and other lies he tells himself.
Rosu_Aprins@reddit
I have to wonder how the Rutte apologists will spin this one, because I really fail to see the 9D chess that he's doing by calling trump daddy and parroting all of trump's ideas for nato.
TraditionalGap1@reddit
There's plenty of valid criticisms to make of his approach but his strategy is so simple a child should be able to figure it out. Using flattery as a tool of negotiation with a narcissist isn't exactly 9D chess
TachiH@reddit
Can we just end NATO please? It clearly is unfit for purpose if it's just going to be run by weak men who view it as a badge of honour to suck US Presidents dicks?
Miiirx@reddit
We are tested by the US to be pushed into ww3.. but I like the idea that we don't want anything to do with the China, and just keep at bay the Russia. And also now, protect our way of life against the USA.
Chipay@reddit
At NATO’s founding, the United States was reluctant to be pulled into colonial conflicts. As a result, they insisted on including a specific article in the treaty:
This clarified that the U.S. would not engage in conflicts outside Europe and North America under NATO’s banner. Today, nearly eight decades later, the U.S. is objecting to Europe’s stance that NATO should not be involved in conflicts beyond those same regions.
It's all sophistry anyway. The US did not invoke any NATO article to summon European allies or their infrastructure, because none of the articles of the treaty are applicable to this American war.
KronusTempus@reddit
All I’m seeing is American vassal states just now realizing that they’ve been vassal states this whole time. It was never about democracy, it was about the American led global order, and the Europeans were good little pawns.
GianfrancoZoey@reddit
It is quite funny to see people going 'all Rutte is doing is sucking up to Trump! That's not what NATO is about!' when historically that's exactly what NATO is about - the president was just someone who wasn't as garish so it wasn't so obvious what the relationship was (and people were more okay with being their lapdog)
This won't end with Rutte either, the next NATO chief (if there even is one lol) will be someone like Starmer, a totally feckless tool of the Atlanticist establishment.
kitolz@reddit
NATO members had the belief that at least if came down to it, if they gat attacked the US would use their military to defend their allies. So if they use the bases for their personal benefit, it was still worth it for host countries to have US bases around. Now that it looks like the US won't fulfill defense obligations when pish comes to shove, those bases are looking like a strategic vulnerability.
nates1984@reddit
Bits and pieces of the EU are starting to wake up to the world they live in.
Iran is a drone factory, and their drones will one day smash into EU soil. The people in the EU who continue to preach pacifism are going to feel foolish, at the very least.
Everyone gets so fixated on the US and Trump, but really this is about the EU. It's about how unprepared they are and how there are pockets trying to push against that current.
Of course, this thread will be full of US bashing. In a dark and morbid way, I'm amused by it all, because it's clear to me that once the multi-polar world really sets in, people will look back on American hegemony with rose-colored glasses.
Treinrukker@reddit
This moron is a liar, he got caught deleting messages and gave as an excuse that his phone storage was full and he had no recollection of doing this while being the prime minister.
Avarus_Lux@reddit
Ah yes the "daar heb ik geen actieve herinnering aan" Meme from back when.
Grand-Consequence-99@reddit
What a joke this guy. So in 2001 most european countries joined and helped the US on war on terror. Article 5 was invoked and Europe sent its soldiers to fight with the americans in Iraq and Afghanistan for the next 20 years. Each country lost hundreds of soldiers with Denmark leading after the US on soldiers death compared to country size. Then, because of the Epstein Files, without consulting its allies and against the recommendation of its most decorate generals, the Orange Man decided to invade Iran. Months after insulting Europe and tried to illegale annex Greenland. Now he knows he lost and is trying to have a political confirmation from EU that Iran is bad and donnie is good and he is trying to show thr world: look, europe is here too!. I Europe is re arming very fast and even now eithout thr USA, Russia has no chances against a unified Europe. My question: why are we acting like Europe has to fight Thanos and his army? If we would fight we would fight the russians not the chitauris.
KronusTempus@reddit
That’s exactly what good vassals do, they contribute troops to their lord. Rome had vassals, as did Carthage, as did many medieval kings etc… this is the latest iteration.
There have been very few times in history the British navy had to compete with the army for funding because Britain’s priorities are quite clear. Well now is one of those times, the army is prioritized because America has its own ships, all it needs is warm bodies to fill trenches or go die in a ditch in Afghanistan.
I’m afraid that just as most things in Europe, a lot of it is setting deadlines, patting each other on the shoulders, and then a few years later pushing those deadlines forward because no one did anything. The German army for example, according to military experts and the Federal Court of Auditors, has actually gotten smaller and less operationally capable since 2022. There’s 1 general for every 900 soldiers.
It’s not a question of spending money, spending has gone up drastically, it’s about how effectively you can put that money to good use, and the reports are quite concerning.
Everyone_dreams@reddit
Tested? A pointless war done to district from the pedo files and some good ole market manipulation for Trump and his allies?
Yeah no. They did right not to help. Trump, Hegseth, and Rubio I would call idiots if I did not suspect the entire point was to weaken America and enrich themselves.
AutoModerator@reddit
The link you have provided contains keywords for topics associated with an active conflict, and has automatically been flaired accordingly. If the flair was not updated, the link submitter MUST do so. Due to submissions regarding active conflicts generating more contrasting discussion, comments will only be available to users who have set a subreddit user flair, and must strictly comply with subreddit rules. Posters who change the assigned post flair without permission will be temporarily banned. Commenters who violate Reddiquette and civility rules will be summarily banned.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.