this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2025

187 points (96.5% liked)

World News

50563 readers

2214 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
- Blogsites are treated in the same manner as social media sites. Medium, Blogger, Substack, etc. are not valid news links regardless of who is posting them. Yes, legitimate news sites use Blogging platforms, they also use Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube and we don't allow those links either.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world

Recommendations

How to spot Misinformation and Propaganda

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

NewsAutoMod@lemmy.world

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

lemmyAtom@lemmy.world

jordanlund@lemmy.world

187

Trump floats dropping Spain from NATO alliance (www.straitstimes.com)

submitted 2 weeks ago by schizoidman@lemmy.zip to c/world@lemmy.world

40 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/50670212

top 40 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Formfiller@lemmy.world 75 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

What a turd

[–] takeda@lemmy.dbzer0.com 84 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

That's not how NATO works. He can't kick out somebody because he wants to.

NATO is agreement they all members are committed to defend each other in case of attack.

What he is actually doing is trying to divide and break NATO for his boss, putin.

From his actions so far I'm worried that if Russia attacks Europe, not only US won't help, he will be actively sabotaging any operations.

[–] DarkAri@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Incredibly stupid even if he could, they hold the straight of gebalter which is one of the most important if not the most important military location in the world. Stupidity is the reason authoritarians destroy their own countries more so than even corruption.

[+] sapousername@kbin.earth -25 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

No man, he's trying to use this thing to divide Europe. US (not only Trump, even all previous presidents) don't like EU, it's a problem for the geopolitical monopoly of US. In this historical period, US need to reaffirm their economical superiority and want to call their vassals to the order. But EU is an obstacle to the US vassalage project, so they want to destroy it. They help anti-EU movements and at the same time the pro US parties. They impose double taxes and military expenditure (that is another tax). They pretend to EU trades only with US and US vassals by requiring economic taxes against China and support to Israel. They put at war the EU in Ukraine to stress it's economy. And now, their just using another opportunity to stress the relationships between UE states, because now Italy, Hungary, Polony, and France (which is a soon-to-be right-wing US friend) need to take position about it, and are just looking forward to have another opportunity to divide EU.

[–] Enkrod@feddit.org 33 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The US put the EU at war in Ukraine?

I'd say the war in Ukraine is the direct result of the illegal Russian invasions in 2014 and 2022 and the ongoing war of aggression, but go off buddy.

Apart from that, yes, the EU is inconvenient for every other bigger power, this includes the single remaining mayor power, the american empire.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 13 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

they put at war the EU in Ukraine

Oh wow yeah, that must be why we’re seeing all the Bundeswehr and Armee de Terre and Wojsko Polskie and so on casualties in the war as they fight against Russia.

Except that’s utter bullshit and none of it is true. What the fuck are you smoking?

I don’t disagree that the current US regime is doing its best to undermine EU unity, but at the same time, don’t parrot idiotic and patently false Kremlin talking points.

[+] sapousername@kbin.earth -10 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

sorry, maybe my English is not clear, I meant to say that the war in Ukraine has been looked forward by the US

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Uh… no…?

Before the war started, Biden’s administration executed one of the most shrewd and incisive applications of intelligence sharing and publication to categorically disprove not only Putin’s smoke screen of “we’re totally not planning on invading Ukraine”, but also pretty much their entire casus belli.

After the war started - and before the current regime took power - there was a frustratingly long period of time where the US more or less hung Ukraine out to dry, and we only started seriously supporting them (in a similarly frustratingly piecemeal and nannying fashion) pretty far into the active phase of the war.

There’s an argument to be made that the Biden admin’s policy towards the war was aimed at bleeding Russia out; while I agree that there’s something to that with regard to the outcome of that policy, I honestly think Jake Sullivan (Biden’s NS advisor) being such a categorical limpdick with infuriatingly outdated worldviews, particularly with regard to Russia, was the primary driver of why things were so stingy and halting for so long. The attrition was much more an effect of that hemming and hawing, and much less the actual intent - at least, until towards the very end of the administration’s tenure… at which point leaning into the attrition strategy was blindingly fucking stupid, considering the incoming regime’s obvious predilections.

I don’t think it’s coherent to try to tie the Biden admin’s policy - frustrating, myopic, and stuttering as it was in many ways - to how the current regime is trying to orchestrate things, for several reasons:

Orangeboi is still kind of obviously super Russophilic for deeply suspicious reasons
Orangeboi et al have an extremely transactional, zero-sum, and kissingeresque worldview, and are demonstrably quite frustrated that Ukraine isn’t acquiescing to being treated like a nice little obedient pawn
Orangeboi personally dislikes Zelenskyy, and orangeboi is notorious for letting petty personal disputes dictate his actions, and is further notorious for holding the most insanely stupid and spiteful grudges far beyond the bounds of logic and reasonability
Orangeboi detests his political opponents, to the point where his regime is disassembling pretty much every single thing not associated directly with him, simply out of spite and animosity

[–] Damage@feddit.it -2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The war in Ukraine didn't start during the Biden administration, it started in 2014 with the Euromaidan, where both Russian and Western assets certainly played a role in the events, resulting in the annexation of Crimea and the "civil war" in Donbas where Russian paramilitaries and unmarked actual militaries operated.

I support the Ukrainian peoples' right to self determination and reject war as tool to settle disputes, but saying the US has no responsibility in starting the war is just dishonest. If they wanted they could have assuaged Russia, it's not like they actually care about Ukrainian people, but it was in their interest for this war to happen, so they stoked the fire. Is it solely their responsibility? No of course, Russia is the one actually waging war, but please let's be objective.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 weeks ago

Oh - I didn’t by any means intend to say the US has no culpability in the war. We absolutely do. A huge contributor to the active phase kicking off in 2022 was the US and the UK essentially abrogating their parts in the Budapest Memorandum - specifically, their guarantees of territorial integrity and sovereignty to Ukraine, in exchange for Ukraine surrendering their nuclear weapons to Russia (which Russia repaid by, of course, doing a shadow invasion in 2014 and an active/open invasion in 2022).

I blame Obama and Merkel for doing fuck-all in 2014. I believe Obama was interested in doing more, but Merkel dug in her heels because of that sweet, sweet oil from Nordstream I (and the at-the-time potential for NS II). She is never to be sufficiently damned for being a core enabler/useful idiot in this clusterfuck of a war that Ukraine is being subjected to. There are not a lot of politicians who fell further in terms of my respect for them than Merkel.

[–] A_norny_mousse@feddit.org 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Bleak. But still you're perpetrating the picture the US likes to paint of themselves: the de facto sheriff of the world. Which has always been delusional (but something voters really go for apparently), and getting more so by the minute.

I also need to add that Russia's invasion was a European problem in early 2022. Sure, US influence had already been a thing in Ukraine, but imho all that has been blown up by Russia's troll army after the fact. Even "NATO coming too close" or some such - painting Russia as the victim, not perpetrator - wasn't a talking point until long after the war started. Seriously, Finland joining NATO? That's entirely your fault, Putler.
That said, of course NATO-Russia relations have never been very good, almost by design.

[–] A_norny_mousse@feddit.org 5 points 2 weeks ago

A floater

[–] A_norny_mousse@feddit.org 56 points 2 weeks ago

Please stop sanewashing Rump's ramblings, which are as numerous and wild and pointless as... meh, I'm all out of analogies.

[–] Auk@lemmy.world 39 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Chinga tu madre culo

[–] Soggy@lemmy.world 14 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I know enough of those words to agree!

[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 weeks ago

I only know the middle two, but that's enough

[–] floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 28 points 2 weeks ago

Sure bro, the US is the main character and the other countries are just NPCs

[–] WanderingThoughts@europe.pub 22 points 2 weeks ago

So he just thinks Spain isn't buying enough from the USA's outlet store.

[–] Wispy2891@lemmy.world 12 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

All the American politicians that managed to persuade foreign states to voluntarily join an "alliance" where one "ally" is dominating everything, decisions, how much land for bases and so on, are all rolling in their graves now

[–] jjpamsterdam@feddit.org 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The greatest trick the United States ever pulled was convincing the countries in its sphere of influence that they were allies on equal footing.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

They probably didn't need much convincing given they really needed American money.

[–] TheLunatickle@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 weeks ago

*Guns not money, they needed time to recover before Russia did a Russia again and invaded it's neighbours.

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 4 points 2 weeks ago

Trump is a fiddle with two strings. One is extortion, and the other is the rug-pull.

[–] vga@sopuli.xyz 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Back when Russia/Soviet Union still had actual power it was a much better deal for Europe.

[–] Damage@feddit.it 1 points 2 weeks ago

Also back then European countries couldn't really choose, the US called the shots

[–] notsure@fedia.io 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

..what is a treaty?..

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Not sure, let's ask the native Americans. Oh wait...

[–] notsure@fedia.io 1 points 1 week ago

...hey, chippy, you keep your past to your self...

[–] SkabySkalywag@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Ah. I think his brilliant plan is to replace Spain with Argentina.

[–] stoly@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

And Argentina is already in BRICS.

[–] ms_lane@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Better article- https://www.politico.eu/article/trump-suggests-booting-laggard-spain-from-nato-over-defense-spending/

[–] paris@lemmy.blahaj.zone 22 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

This article doesn't even say why Spain isn't committing to the 5% target. The article OP crossposted says why in the first few sentences:

But Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez said at the time that he would not commit to the 5 per cent target, calling it “incompatible with our welfare state and our world vision”.

Not sure how the Politico article is better in this case since it seems less informative.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Because the source is important, and Politico is generally more trustworthy.

With both articles, you can now probably trust what's in them (and maybe use context clues to figure out a little bit about the biases of both authors). But until seeing the story corroborated by a reputable source, I will not take it at face value.

[–] selkiesidhe@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 weeks ago

So what does the dumbass think Spain is suddenly doing or not doing? Did he see someone from Spain speaking Spanish on TV? Does he think since Mexicans speak Spanish that Spain is also Mexico?

Come on, you know it's something stupid...

[–] Cybersteel@lemmy.world -2 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Why're we using straits times, a state owned newspaper by the Chinese government??

[–] schizoidman@lemmy.zip 11 points 2 weeks ago

The Straits Times, launched on July 15, 1845, is an English-language newspaper based in Singapore.

Singapore Press Holdings currently owns The Straits Times

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-straits-times/

[–] paris@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Does the article have any problems you'd like to point out, or are we just being weird and racist for the fun of it? The Straights Times is Singaporean, not Chinese. The only link I can find between The Straights Times and the government of China is from a few months ago when the CEO met with several Chinese state-run news agencies to discuss collaborating to "tell the story of the two countries’ development and people-to-people friendship." That's the only link I can find. The Singaporean news outlet is most definitely not "a state owned newspaper by the Chinese government."

Edit: The Straights Times is republishing this article by Reuters. Any complaints you have would be directed there, not at The Straights Times. You're being weird.

[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

Straits