Greenland issue must not lead to end of NATO, former Finnish president says(yle.fi)

7 pointsby perihelions5 hours ago2 comments

rzzzwilson5 hours ago
NATO without the USA would be a different thing, sure, but why does the USA behaving against the interests of NATO members have to end NATO?
- mullingitover4 hours ago
  > behaving against the interests of NATO members
  That's a very passive voice way to talk about the United States attacking a NATO ally in order to steal their territory. The US committing an act of war against NATO should end NATO if the treaty is worth anything at all.
  This type of thing should realistically end the United States. The country does not deserve to wield this amount of global power if it's going to engage in thug behavior.
- tim-tday2 hours ago
  Because if any NATO member is attacked the agreement says nato must defend as a group. If US attacks Greenland NATO is technically required to defend.
  They obviously could not go to war with the US and would instead dissolve NATO.
ggm5 hours ago
Use of normative MUST in politics means two things: firstly somebody concretely wants (or doesn't want for MUST NOT) which itself implies possible contentious views, opposites even, and secondly that a concrete alternative is proposed. It may be do nothing, it may be do something but the point is the alternative achieves the MUST or MUST NOT.
In this case, the proposed alternative is not do nothing. It's re-center NATO around European norms, goals and behaviours. Implicitly also a call for European NATO budgets to increase significantly, which Spain (for example) refused to do and which some European and wider partners have said MUST but.. have failed to do.
Also until recently the US government wanted that increase in spending too. Admittedly to buy US materiels but that's a detail in some ways.
He wants this. There is no imperative beyond OR ELSE.. outcomes.