Except those who dissented publicly, right? Pretty sure Sotomayor was pretty publicly pissed off at the rest of the court.

Probably. But who knows. And the fact that the only cope is “it’s just a negotiating tactic” like MAGA after prices increase from tariffs is giving me a headache. What a time to be alive.

Here’s another

https://www.ft.com/content/ce9eb7e4-7989-45f6-a3b3-3cdec73a8540

A Nato official confirmed the message’s authenticity.

I can only provide some sample articles that reference a confirmation from Rutte’s office. I don’t think they put out a statement or a release, I think reporters called the office and got confirmation that way. Not sure you’ll be able to find a public statement.

https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20250624-trump-posts-nato-chief-gushing-message-praise-extraordinary-iran-action-rutte

Here’s a French one that theoretically isn’t bound to gobble Trumps knob.

“Congratulations and thank you for your decisive action in Iran, that was truly extraordinary and something no one else dared to do. It makes us safer,” Rutte wrote in a message shared by Trump on Truth Social – and confirmed by the NATO chief’s office.

I regret to inform you Rutte’s office has confirmed officially. I took massive psychic damage when I discovered this was a real post of a real text not a real post of a fake text.

Of course it is, LLMs are inherently regurgitation machines - train on biased data, make biased predictions.

International “law” is a misnomer, as you’ve noticed… it’s only enforceable at the end of a pointy stick, physical or economic. “Conventions” are a more appropriate phrase. This is indeed disappointing.

Yeah probably, he has the foresight of an infant. Doesn’t mean NATO countries will respect an attempted invocation of Article 5.

Trump can act as he wants, that doesn’t magically make other nations forget what NATO agreements actually say.

NATO was never involved in any of the other US-lead wars. Western countries may form a coalition for a war but that’s independent of and unrelated to NATO and purely at their own discretion, not out of any obligation. Feel free to protest your national government if they choose to get involved, but don’t act like they have no agency and Trump forced them to do anything.

NATO also only works defensively - the US struck first, and as a result no NATO country has any obligation to get involved, even if it were an attack on home territory.

I emotionally agree with you, but really the problem is that… anyone could do that in the future. Denying someone owed care because of political belief is a horrendous situation to explicitly allow, regardless of political affiliation.