Nato leaders have informally agreed not to mention the football World Cup to Donald Trump for fear of irritating the US president at a crucial time for the military alliance.

Further below…

In the first open acknowledgment of the strategy, the Belgian prime minister, Bart De Wever, told reporters in Ankara he would not be discussing his country’s 4-1 win over the US earlier this week.

Look, can everyone please do their best not to annoy the bumbling pedophile? Thank you - your cooperation is appreciated.

  • kahoodd@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    22 minutes ago

    I heard he rearranged the conference with his men to be the elephant in the room, he was ready to go nuke lol

    • ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Some recent reports claimed EU needs about 10 years to become militarily independent from USA. Some other reports claim that Russia is planning on testing NATO in the near future. Most countries realize now they can’t rely on USA anymore but not talking about football is small price to pay for keeping the alliance together a little big longer.

      • Malyca@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 minutes ago

        There’s no avoiding rocking the boat with a narcissist. There’s no placating them. The only ways to deal with them is to bully them or ignore them.

      • Guy Ingonito@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Here’s the thing, barring a nuclear weapon I think Poland or Finland all by themselves could take Russia and there’s no one else really threatening Europe at the moment.

        Trump also doesn’t respect placation, it just invites him to go harder. What he does respect is popularity and violence. He’s cool with Mamdani because the mayor is popular, he’s deferential to Putin because Putin projects violence.

    • cynar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 minutes ago

      Ironically, it actually did its job pre WWII.

      Chamberlain realised he had fucked up. Britain didn’t have the forces to actually resist the Nazis. Appeasement was to buy them time to rearm. When the war actually started, Chamberlain fell on his proverbial sword, to give Churchill a clean slate and a functional military to work with.

    • jdr@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Well you don’t hear about all the times it prevented a world war

  • Kintarian@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    21 hours ago

    Why are all the world’s leaders kissing his ass? Why doesn’t anyone have the balls to tell him no, he’s an idiot?

    • 100_kg_90_de_belin@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      15 hours ago

      Nuclear bombs.

      Endless military bases sprinkled around Europe.

      The capability for dealing economic damage.

      A cabinet of sycophants.

      A cult-like following.

    • NeilBrü@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      5 hours ago

      He is the commander-in-chief of the world’s most advanced military and second largest nuclear stockpile on Earth. Despite the United States’ economic woes, he also wields great influence over a massive trade partner with the EU.

      Until the Europeans can successfully deleverage most of their integration with the United States military and economy, the pragmatic thing to do is only pick fights where it’s absolutely necessary.

      Personally, for what it’s worth, I wouldn’t want to cede one millimeter of proberbial ground to what is clearly the worst president of all time. However, I understand the tactical decision being made.

    • matlag@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      18 hours ago

      Why antagonize him while it’s much easier to appeal to him and make him sign stupid deals in your favor he wil call victories?

        • matlag@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 hours ago

          If you piss him off, you get an instant tariff or “stop all relations with …” (see Spain). Agreements may not hold well, but at least you have a default way of working when he’s not having a tantrum.