reuters.com
www.reuters.com

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.

    • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
      1·
      4 days ago

      How much of NATO is actually needed in the short term? The last bit there was kind of going in that direction. Just being a nuclear power that would credibly respond to actions against any member seems like it would provide safety for a few years.

      Over the longer term, a coordinated structure to respond to novel threats starts to matter.

        • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
          1·
          4 days 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.

            • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
              1·
              4 days 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.

                • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
                  1·
                  1 day ago

                  Maybe you don’t buy MAD, but actual (rather than potential, never-to-pass) use was never mentioned. That just feels like straight up putting words in my mouth, please take it back.

                  Which other powers are you worried about? Russia is busy and struggling, China is far enough away from Europe it’s hard to picture them directly fighting each other. My own country uniquely has exposure to both China and the North Atlantic, but China won’t invade here anytime soon, while the US is a very real threat.

                  Your implication is that NATO being gone is a shrug.

                  If that was conveyed, it wasn’t meant. Again, there’s no really good options in a world where the US is sliding into fascism, and no option where NATO lasts past the medium term, anyway. It’s just a question of what order things break in.