I hate how “anti-war” has been hijacked by these people to mean, let imperialist countries invade whoever they want with no consequences. (in the case of tankies, any imperialist country that isn’t in NATO).

    • @yesman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      324 days ago

      I’m afraid that mutual defense isn’t as iron clad as you think. If Article 5 of NATO ever gets triggered you’ll get a masterclass on weaseling out of obligations. It’s ironic because Ukraine may already be receiving the kind of support a full NATO member is entitled to.

      • BarqsHasBite
        link
        fedilink
        204 days ago

        Unfortunately with Trump the US will try to weasel their way out. Europe knows too well what happens.

        • NaibofTabr
          link
          fedilink
          English
          104 days ago

          This does seem likely with Trump… but he’s also in bed with the military-industrial complex, which never misses a chance to get contracts.

      • It only works if you actually commit to it.

        But imagine the implications if a country did not commit to it (bar an obvious one like Hungary or Turkey). They’ll likely get sanctioned, probably will have trouble entering any useful alliances for the next decade or so because no one trusts them anymore.

        • @Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          54 days ago

          If one didn’t, sure. But what happens when NATO as a whole doesn’t defend Poland? What’s Poland going to do? Or even just Trump’s US?

          • @Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            33 days ago

            The trick is that (Eastern) Europe is filled with NATO troops and material from all countries. You would need an extremely nasty retreat of these troops if you do not support (say) Poland. Also at the moment (officially) the US has stationed nuclear weapons in 6 European countries, and there are very likely more also in the form of submarines that are not known to the public. Retreating means leaving those weapons in Russian hands. Then again, maybe Trump does not care about that.

          • @LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            1
            edit-2
            3 days ago

            Well ideally if you don’t want to be a part of an agreement, you just tell the people you made the agreement with that you are no longer a part of it.

            If you do so amicably, parties may be fine with it it may not have bad effects. If you wait till one of those counties is being invaded and back out, it likely would not end amicably, and with them having to switch over to a wartime economy, they may cut all trade moving forward with the member who screwed them over. Could cost the U.S. trillions in trade annually.

            Aka it would be more profitable to support your allies, or get out of the agreement early, but that doesn’t guarantee counties don’t say… Why should we trade with someone who would hang us out to dry? And it hurts our economy anyway.

      • @FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
        link
        fedilink
        1
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        Fine, let’s just make it legal for bad guys to have guns and illegal for anyone else have guns, I’m sure that will work! (ever heard of the monopolisation of violence to uphold the status quo of those in power)

        Also you’re a 30 minute old account who’se entire purpose seems to be spreading your views on this very post, confirmed by username and sharing of misinformation source.

        @WrenFeathers@lemmy.world is this kind of thing worth reporting or not? Just super sketchy behaviour but idk if it specifically breaks any rules.