Archived copy is here: https://archive.is/DqZ6m
The article says this:
“Immediately withdraw from NATO’s integrated command and then, in stages, from the organization itself. Reject the tribute demanded by the United States of 5% of GDP devoted to defense spending,” read France Unbowed’s 222-page program.
However, France under Mélenchon would still provide assistance to European Union countries under EU treaties, the document added
Is Melenchon right? Is it better for the EU to be the organisation of mutual defence guarantees for Europe, rather than NATO?
I’m curious how you can argue it’s not tribalistic. I’m not arguing against it I think it’s actually serves a very useful purpose. But I’m just stuck on how it’s not tribalistic because by definition it’s an Us Versus Them organization. The whole point is to defend us against them. That’s literally why it was founded. That’s absolutely tribalism.
What NATO is, is a defensive Alliance.
NATO was founded to stop the possibility of another Hitler. Of another Nazi Germany coming to power and using military force to seize land in Europe or the Americas. In short it was built to stop what’s happening in Ukraine right now. Which is why Putin moved on Ukraine before they could join NATO.
NATO was built to stop tribalism.
No, that isn’t even remotely true. NATO was in no way built to stop fascist strong men. Even a cursory look at the history of the 20th century shows that to be laughably untrue. Hell the biggest sponsor of fascist strong men in the 20th century was the United States so I cannot even fathom how you came to that conclusion.
NATO is, and was, a defensive alliance. This is not in dispute. You can look at the charter, this is spelled out explicitly.
source?