On January 7, US president Donald Trump promised to withdraw the US from 35 international organizations and 31 UN agencies:

The Memorandum orders all Executive Departments and Agencies to cease participating in and funding 35 non-United Nations (UN) organizations and 31 UN entities that operate contrary to U.S. national interests, security, economic prosperity, or sovereignty.

Unverified: then the White House deleted the announcement from their website (personal note: I did receive 404 on it for a while).

Correction: announcement is still up or has reappeared. An archived copy is also available in case they change their mind.

  • green_red_black@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    20 hours ago

    Given Russia is looking to take Ukraine and likely the other former Soviet countries and now we have the US is eyeing for the western hemisphere you are going to need NATO as a whole.

    As for nuclear deterrence that only works if you are willing to use it. And I doubt France or the UK is willing.

    • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      19 hours ago

      Russia is having trouble fighting just Ukraine + Western weapons. Europe would not have trouble winning (at whatever cost) if it came to it in the near term, NATO or no.

      I feel like it should go without saying that the US would not be supporting NATO, if NATO was fighting the US. So, zero days to build back up without them, and they probably blow things up on their way out.

      And I doubt France or the UK is willing.

      Why? Unless you think none of the nuclear powers are willing. France in particular does not have a reputation for passivity.

      • green_red_black@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        19 hours ago

        Yes Russia is struggling but at the same time Ukraine (despite the efforts) is also not winning. Furthermore the military coordination is done via NATO, so its loss would create problems. Yes it’s not going to be Russian tanks on the streets of Paris, but it will be Russian tanks making a mess All over Eastern Europe.

        Obviously yes but also NATO would stop existing. Seriously where within how NATO is structured are you getting that the loss of the US would be a shrug?

        Erm because Nukes wipe out whole cities? We are talking literal WMDs here, what of that screams “yeah we totally are willing to be the first to launch a strike.”

        • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          18 hours ago

          Hey, I didn’t say a shrug. It’s also a bad option, just in a world with no really great ones left.

          Erm because Nukes wipe out whole cities? We are talking literal WMDs here, what of that screams “yeah we totally are willing to be the first to launch a strike.”

          That’s also how it works for the US, though. MAD has still held for decades, because nobody really wants whatever thing bad enough to risk escalation.

          • green_red_black@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            17 hours ago

            Your implication is that NATO being gone is a shrug.

            My argument is that it is not so simple. Getting the components of NATO back (particularly the coordination of the common defense.) would take time, time that would create a vulnerability other powers will exploit.

            And yet here you are arguing for escalation and use of nukes. The only reason MAD has worked is no one has yet call one’s bluff (or rather has with Russia constantly reminding they have an arsenal and totally will use it, and yet here we are.)