> To be honest, I do not find this to be that absurd.
What? This is the definition of absurdity.
I am not saying that it is not absurd, just that it is not that absurd.
The UN charter prevents war except in specific situations, which do not include someone being indicted for war crimes. Of course it didn’t stop the US before, but the mere idea of the US attacking a NATO ally that’s also a member state of the EU is bonkers, even after 4 years of Trump.
"this"?
> The UN charter prevents war except in specific situations, which do not include someone being indicted for war crimes. Of course it didn’t stop the US before
So it is useless.
> but the mere idea of the US attacking a NATO ally that’s also a member state of the EU is bonkers, even after 4 years of Trump.
It is certainly not the first time that the US has made such threats. Whether it is likely to act on it I do not know - in the same spirit though, isn't the work of the ICC bonkers? It is not like the US going to just send their service member there out of their goodwill.
To be fair, the article is not necessarily fantastic, it was just to show that there indeed were trade wars between the US and the EU before Trump.
They literally have a casus belli to invade the netherlands.
To be honest, I do not find this to be that absurd. The only bad thing about this is that the US is not willing to punish their own war criminals.
> This administration is shattering any form of international cooperation not based on power and submission
The only other two things that I can think of are the withdrawal from UNESCO and from WHO (this one was justified IMO), do you have anything else in mind?