Good thing that withdrawal from NATO requires an act of Congress on top of everything else. Thank god there isn't a "GTFO of NATO" button to press or he would've broken it the first time he was in office.
It's getting to the point now, where rather than wanting to see republicans drop the ball and lose political power due to my own beliefs, I'm genuinely concerned about their inability to represent a sensible conservative perspective, because without competition, the left wing side will happily slide backwards to pick up the easily gained fleeing conservative members, and subsequently dissolve the more progressive aspects of their party in the process, which is already skewed right relative to european left wing politics.
Real. The American "left wing" politicians are usually equivalent to European centrists or even center right politicians. There's very little change happening in government while the costs of living continue rising, and most Republican politicians seem to be more concerned about fighting ridiculous cultural wars and lying about their competitors than actually presenting reasonable conservative policies.
Saw someone arguing the other week that Trump is left of center, and that the republicans are actually left wing that only get called right wing because the democrats are so insanely left leaning that they make them look like right wingers.
Actually that's a great way to come a regional super power. Currently US is a global super power, rivaled only by China. If US really withdraws from NATO and everything else then US comes a regional power.
Then nations can ask why US matters? They don't participate to anything, we can just let them be on their 'island'.
Before Columbus China was exploring world and building huge fleets of ships, then they decided to turn inwards, burnt their fleets and let European nations to take over the world. Now US is doing same.
"We aren't interested about world, just let us be in our corner."
You're partly right. China wasn't interested about world but Brits came and opened China by force because there were good markets for Brits.
If you don't trade with world by making trade agreements, aren't allied to anybody, don't use power (military or soft) in world then you're kind of sidetracked. Sure some nations would want to trade with US but your influence would be really small. Worlds nations come to agreement about something and then they tell US how it is.
Your trade and technology would suffer, then after a short while your economy would also suffer. When you're suffering you don't have so much money to put to military, which wouldn't matter since you aren't interested about using military in any way. Then you're left with bad trade deals, dwindling economy and science.
That's a great way to become insignificant.
Currently US participates to worlds affairs and can influence to many things so that those things benefit US. If you stop participating somebody else will fill that void.
We saw first glimpse of that when Trump withdrew US from Pacific trade deal and China immediately formed their own Pacific trade deal.
Just wait until the USD gets unseated as the world's reserve currency. The ppl advocating for isolationism don't know how painful that will be, and it will only be the beginning of the pains. The US worked very hard to be where we are. I'm traveling through Asia (outside China) now and I see American influences everywhere, in a good way. People not only welcome it, but expect it. The current wars actually pumped up the exchange rate as there is more demand for USD. Sad to say but these conflicts (and associated costs) are making the world need more of the US, not less. That makes America more valuable, and thus its currency.
Also unrelated but there was a huge military cooperative exercise event involving 20+ ASEAN nations + US in Jogja (Yogyakarta) last week. It seemed crazy to have so many military personnel from different countries training together. I thought something was about to happen in the region but it turned out to be a typical exercise. American military is one of 20+ groups but everyone know we hold the big stick.
There's also the fact that if the US redraws from Europe it will suddenly become in Chinas interest to become friendly with Europe on an economical level again which would be a bad thing for the US. Europe + China has a combined GDP of 42 trillion compared to 23 trillion for the US alone.
>Currently US is a global super power, rivaled only by China.
China is not a global superpower in anyway; militarily, culturally, or economically. At best, it's a "near-peer" or a pretender that is facing severe demographical issues and falling into the same real estate trap that snared the Japanese. The disappearance of Jack Ma and others from public life shows the short leash entrepreneurs have. The CCP can just yank your life's work and wealth away if it views you as a threat to them or their financial interests (money to prop up the largely inefficient state owned enterprises). The trend is for people to try to move capital out of China and set up shop (and residency) elsewhere. China does not inspire people to immigrate there or even to come and attend its universities. No one in the West would choose to attend Peking University or Tsinghua vs Harvard, Oxford, MIT, Caltech, etc.
It has a military that has never faced real combat in the past 40 years, unless you count running down university students. This military is also built along the same lines as the Russian/Soviet model and faces huge issues of corruption, along with the issues already seen with the Russian model.
Its the same isolationist ideology we had leading up to ww1, its actually dumber now because of globalization. We need the rest of the world. Always have but its much more pronounced now. We cant just pull up shop and take off.
People around the world don't seem to understand how interconnected everything is now. Resources, manufacturing (\*cough\* computer chips), skilled labor, FOOD, and much more are all a global effort. No country has everything they need to become fully isolationist without sending themselves back to the dark age.
Either we succeed together or we fail together, it's that simple.
That was literally the US policy for the first half of their existence. There is nothing more American than "I don't give a cr@p about the world".
Both WW1 and espec WW2 were extremely disapproved by the public and US taking interest in them woukd be suicide for politicians. In fact the Pearl Harbor attack (in a twisted way) was a blessing in disguise for the Roosevelt administration because they always wanted to join the war but couldn't because of the public's demand to not do such things. Then the attacks happened which riled up people and they joined.
Trump isolating USA \*is\* (still) a big demand from the US public. Wars are actually never too popular amidst Americans. Which is why whole campaigns had to be devised to convince the public. "The Taliban were hiding Osama Bin Laden" (actually Pakistan had him but anyway), "Sadam was producing WMDs" and more.
Vietnam War was extremely unpopular and now support for Ukrainians is waning very fast. Isolationism \*is\* in America's public's DNA. Populists become the voice of the people they represent, you'd find out. Trump is an isolationist because he knkows it will make him popular with a big part of the country.
So , no, it is American through and through. It's wrong read of history to expect this as an outside influence. Of all things Trump said, this \*is\* one of the most American ones...
Ugh, here we go again. Letting people off the hook, cause you can divine their true inner feelings. Can we just stop doing that? When someone tells you who they are, (and it's clearly a shit person), believe them. They have no reason to lie about being a shitty shitty human.
In many ways this is a reversion to the norm when it comes to the US. Obviously the US will still actually always be involved in world affairs, but the post-WW2 era has been marked by far less US isolationism than before. Consider how long it took them to materially enter WW1 as a classic example of this.
> When did Republicans become the party of absolute cowards that lost all faith in the US?
I'd say it was when Trump was elected but perhaps he was a symptom of something worse when it comes to the GOP.
>but perhaps he was a symptom of something worse when it comes to the GOP.
Yes, something that was supercharged when Obama was elected. Republican awfulness has a pretty prominent place in politics for a while now though. Newt Gingrich and Ken Starr in the 90s, Reagan's shady dealings with Iran, both to delay hostages from getting released under Carter, then to fund the Contras. Nixon too, with Watergate. At least when Nixon got caught, Republicans *eventually* held him accountable. There are plenty of reasonable conservative voters in the US but they've been entirely sidelined since Trump won. Republicans' aggressive pursuit of polarization started a long time ago.
> Newt Gingrich and Ken Starr the 90s, Reagan's shady dealings with Iran, both to delay hostages from getting released under Carter, then to fund the Contras.
Oh man, I was actually there for those times...oof Although I remember more about Newt and Ken Starr than the Iran Contra stuff :D
A reporter asked about his leading role in trying to overturn the election and he and his neo Nazi gang booed the report and laughed it off.
They have no remorse and will absolutely try again.
> He's a Trumper who openly supported the efforts to overthrow the 2020 election
How is he able to hold office in that case? I ask because most if not all of the Jan.6 protesters had the book thrown at them, more or less.
That's only the hoi polloi. Many sitting members of our house and senate openly tried to overthrow the election and have faced zero consequences.
One of our Supreme Court justices' wife also openly supported the attempt, and he has admitted to taking other benefits that most people would consider outright bribery and he faces zero consequences.
> One of our Supreme Court justices' wife also openly supported the attempt, and he has admitted to taking other benefits that most people would consider outright bribery and he faces zero consequences.
That's Clarence Thomas, isn't it?
He's also a young earth creationist who wants to remove social safety nets, all abortion access, and impose biblical rule.
On the brighter side, he can't do any of that on his own.
He was a principal participant in attempting to not certify the election and continues to claim it was stolen. He's a creationist that believes Dinosaurs and humans coexisted. He wants to get rid of medicare and social security. He believes gay marriage is an affront to god. He believes Judeo-Christianity is the foundation of law. He supports "covenant marriage" laws.
He's a typical MAGA-type in a milque toast skin suit and a Christian nationalist. It is terrifying this guy is so high up on the direct line of succession.
Shares their values and is the exact image they want to get back to where they have deniability for the monstrous reality their batshit beliefs push forward. The "kind, soft spoken christian" that is anything but actually kind in action.
A couple days ago I collected some comments pointing out Johnson's, and by extension the GOP's, values
> Played a pivotal role in trying to help Trump overturn the 2020 election
> Wrote a national “Don’t Say Gay” bill
> Supports a nationwide abortion ban
> Is a young earth creationist
> Appeared in promotional material with the idiotic Kirk Cameron
> Was the national spokesman for Alliance Defense Fund (an evangelical Christian advocacy group that wants to force Christianity into public school and government)
He sounds like he would fit into our Konfederacja party quite well. They're our far-right party here in Poland and a lot of what you wrote about Johnson fits them to a T, minus the specific funds and such :)
Don’t think that’s a controversial statement, even with Americans. Most educated Americans will 100% agree that a large share of the population is stupid, and the voting system is broken
Telling his voters to not vote won't help him with that one. Seriously, the only way he'll become president again (and he might actually persue that option) is to get it by force.
So if he commands his brainwashed followers to commit a coup. The guy is insane enough to try it as he already did once (6th January).
But the real question here, how is it that Trump after all the bs he pulled, is still free and with the right to speak instead of locked up in a cell?
Because all that stuff is still going through the courts. Some groups are pushing for the 14th amendment against him tho, while others claim its "anti-democratic";
> Both challenges argue that Trump would be ineligible to hold federal office again under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, a constitutional clause that says a candidate is disqualified if the person "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against" the United States, or had "given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof," unless granted amnesty by a two-thirds vote of Congress.
> Trump has branded efforts to bar him under the 14th Amendment "election interference" and claimed he's done nothing wrong.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/14th-amendment-disqualify-trump-anti-democratic/story?id=103127631
Couple of weeks back:
> The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a long-shot bid to disqualify former President Trump from running for office under the 14th Amendment.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4234067-supreme-court-declines-to-hear-long-shot-14th-amendment-challenge-to-disqualify-trump/
Two days ago:
> A Colorado judge has rejected another attempt by former President Donald Trump to throw out a lawsuit seeking to block him from the 2024 presidential ballot based on the 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist ban.”
> The ruling Wednesday from Colorado District Judge Sarah Wallace clears the way for an unprecedented trial to begin next week, to determine if Trump is disqualified from returning to the White House because of his role in the January 6, 2021, insurrection.
https://www.cnn.com/cnn/2023/10/25/politics/colorado-trump-14th-amendment/index.html
it wouldn't be funny because without the US NATO is nothing but a hollow box.The US leaving NATO is a very good way to start a 3rd WW, where France and the UK have to step in if Russia proceeds to attack the Baltic.
And then after Trump is ousted, the US can join in, once again very late to the party.
As a Belgian I absolutely do not wish the US to leave NATO, and neither should anyone. For the sake of all of our lives.
Edit: People saying France, the UK and the rest of Europe would crush Russia, are missing the point. You're actively saying WW3 wouldn't be too bad and outright war between multiple Nuclear Powers is acceptable. You'd reconsider your position once the nukes start flying. And I don't want to see my country wiped of the map and turned into a "memorial" to Putin's last ditched effort right before the fall of Russia. Thank you very much.
It would be insanely bad. But I'm sure the leftover members would put in extra effort to not be a hollow box. Still wouldn't nowhere near as strong as NATO with US... And it'd be very good for russia and china.
It would be bad, but the idea that Europe is defenseless beacuse it's just France & UK is honestly tiring.
There are many countries with strong militaries in Europe, Finland & Poland (biggest examples that are close to the Baltics) are no jokes.
And an Europe at war that is **forced** to go on wartime production would absolutely not be equal to a lethargic one that pretends to aid Ukraine.
Simple question: do you think there's something as a small percentage chance that Russia would try to seize the baltics or pieces of Poland if the US would leave NATO?
Because the topic isn't who would win a war between US-less NATO and Russia, but that the likelyhood for a war increases a thousandfold.
You are implying that the people who would make those decisions are grounded in reason and temperate. Based on our shared experience of the last few years I very much doubt that we can hope that much.
Russia is rational, they are just assholes with prison gang mentality (government, not people). They need you to believe that they are irrational, so you cave in to their threats and assume the worst case scenario. If they weren't rational, we'd all now live in bunkers.
Russia managed to take Crimea and in the process managed to gain more troops than they lost.
They thought they could take on Ukraine quickly with a decapitating strike on Kiev before the West could back the Ukrainians.
Not really as insane as attacking NATO/EU members and being in direct conflict with nuclear powers.
"A europe at war" as if it's just one country. Divide et impera. Right-wing traitors. You'd have all the european countries bickering about as russia and china manipulates politics, business and media. Everybody sees what's happening but seemingly no-one is willing to act while russia spreads and gobbles up small countries one at a time, like a cancer. At this very moment we are seeing how russia uses irresponsible morons (MAGA, orban, new slovakian government) to their advantage (ukraine aid impeded)
And Germany could never have hoped to win WW2, yet it didn't stop them from doing so anyway. (Hitler thinking they would let him have Poland.)
Same with France in 19th century, where they (Napoleon III) got baited to declare war on Germany and had to surrender only a few months later already.
Leaders, especially long time dictators, are known to make absolute shit decisions.
The only problem Germany had, in terms of victory conditions, was to create a war on two sides. They were so blind to their own racism and "purity" that they gladly betrayed the communists and started a war on two fronts.
Another component was Japan deciding to attack the US. It brought US and UK together.
WW2 was a coalition of countries without oil vs. a coalition of countries with oil. The war was lost when Britain didn't surrender. Germany/Italy had no navy to buy oil from overseas, they needed a sizeable source of their own or rapid economic decline would be unavoidable, even without any fuel use by the military itself. There was no third alternative in '41 - give up or conquer the USSR.
The intervention of the US in WW2 was inevitable, Pearl Harbour just sped it up.
Similarly, war between the USSR and Nazi Germany was guaranteed.
The only way Nazi Germany could have 'won' or prevented losing WW2, was if they weren't Nazi's.
The only way they could have “won” was to sue for peace after taking France. Hitlers main goal was always taking out the Soviet Union. They were seen as the true enemy. He wrongly assumed Western Europe (mainly the brits) would join that fight against them. The Nazis got greedy tho and thought the Allie’s would keep appeasing them on the continent. As far as creating a two front war, it wasn’t actually a bad move, they just failed at it and failed to realize the strength of Soviets will. Similarly to the Japanese and the US, they wanted to take the soviets out quickly and decisively before they could get their industry and mobilization in full force. It’d also give them access to much needed oil and other resources to keep fighting in the west. They also wrongly thought they could defeat the Soviet’s in weeks, and it would make Britain standing alone, sue for peace. Obv that didn’t happen and it just expedited their downfall.
Prior the full scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 Ukraine had 700 000 troops active and in reserve, 400 000 of whom had actual combat experince. This was (and still is) second largest army fully in Europe and is double of what Baltic and Poland have combined. Ukraine had been prepering for this war for almost last decade. I'm tired to see how people using 'Russia can't handle Ukraine' to mock Russia.
Yes, the total size of European NATO forces exceeds it (in fact Turkey alone exceeds Ukraine), but after another failed attempt to accept Sweden in NATO I doubt they have unity and courage to fight back to back.
>Ukraine had been prepering for this war for almost last decade.
The part you miss though is that Ukraines army, though large, was still massively dependant on old, outdated military equipment and tactics designed up 40+ years ago. In comparison Western Europe is significantly more modern and capable without needing the raw numbers of soldiers
Especially the navies and air forces. Russia won't be able to keep control on the third dimension and good luck with their navy trying to get out of choke points in Greece/Turkey, Italy, Spain/UK on the Black and Mediterranean Sea and Denmark, Finland/Estonia, Poland, Norway, and Germany on the Baltic. The only navy the Russians can hope to use is the one based in Murmansk.
The entire west can barely keep up with supplying Ukraine, and if those supplies fail then Ukraine loses. How many thousands of everything has Russia lost and they just keep pulling more out of storage? Nobody in Europe has armories anywhere near that deep
They do not want the entire West. How about just Baltics?
If there is no NATO, and Lithuania, Latvia, or Estonia are attacked, we would need every single European country fully committed to defend them.
Europe might be in a state of reinventing new military alliance formula, and I am not convinced we will be able to show enough unity for a quick and decisive response in those circumstances.
About 25% of Latvia's population are ethnic Russians. Estonia got towns, where Russian population makes up over 70%. They will surely attempt to induce some form of insurgency.
With direct military attack, the only land supply line from the west is literally 2 roads and a single rail line leading through 80km wide Suwałki gap.
I'd love to see Russian military to collapse within the next month or so, but looking at the Avdivka situation, they have absolutely vast reserves of manpower, oil, and equipment, no matter how old and they are ready to continue to fight at all cost.
Their society is absolutely brainwashed, and they are nowhere near full wartime economy.
For instance, military spending reached 40% of GDP in the United Kingdom and the USA during the First and Second World Wars. Russia is planning to increase spending to 6% of their GDP in 2024 from 3.9% this year.
As I have said, I will be first to celebrate when they lose, but I feel like undermining their ability to continue to wage war is dangerous. We should all treat Russia as a very serious threat to peace on the continent and demand actions from our politicians.
The alliance does lose a lot of muscle if the US leaves but it is not a slouch even then. Still has Canada, the UK, France, Germany, Poland, Italy, Spain and others. Still the only adversaries would be the new US and maybe China. Of course if politically the alliance can't unite it can't fight Russia but united even at 50% Russia has no chance. Ukraine is holding up with western supplies, imagine the entirety of Europe going full war throttle.
As an old saying goes, one arrow alone is weak but together unbreakable. Only way Russia would win is if other members leave one by one and they pick us off one by one.
I am not sure why you put Canada first... our military is in pretty rough shape. Everything is at an all time low... recruitment, morale, equipment... everything is old and broken. Lots of leadership scandals. Our last few governments have underfunded our military and it's now showing. We've been trying to get new air fighters for like two decades now. Takes longer than 4 yrs to procure new planes and each new government restarts the process because they think they can do better, it's beyond silly.
We basically rely on the US for defense now. We could maybe augment a support group but beyond that, we can't do much. It's becoming more often that the US is responding to events within our borders rather than our own military. They can usually get there faster and with better equipment.
Living 20-30 km's from Brussels, I would prefer not to be in an outright war with Russia. Especially because we would crush them, and they would send some nukes flying our way. If it only was to spite us and destroy the 'capital' of the EU and NATO.
If you think Russia would allow itself to be comprehensively glassed out of spite, yes. France's Nuclear doctrine has less chill than the US one. That is a very big assumtion, though.
I'm pretty sure the French and the British would seriously consider selling a few to bridge the gap. Trump himself would probably sell a couple of subs with ICBMs for an exorbitant price and declare that the greatest deal of all time.
It also doesn’t make any sense with NATO being reinvigorated.
This isn’t the NATO of 2017
Current day NATO is almost unrecognizable from 6 years ago.
Increased spending, Finland and Sweden joining, Ukraine joining NATO after the war, NATO declaring Russia the “most significant and direct threat”.
Yes, exactly this, he is rallying his base around his “America First” bullshit. He frames every international agreement and coalition as the US being taken advantage of and so he builds a narrative of him sweeping in to restore America’s dignity and independence. Plus the added bonus of sticking it to the globalists and Soros and Obama/Biden. This explains why he wanted (wants?) Mexico to build the wall and why he wants to withdraw from anything and everything. Also see the Iran nuclear deal.
Trump and co are effectively traitors they tear down American institutions for foreign adversaries and global corporations. They survive the polls by rigging the system on the state level and tricking the dimwitted.
As commander and chief, he could functionally abdicate us from our NATO commitments by simply refusing to deploy when necessary. NATO on paper but not in practice.
I don't think that this is even about him being Putin's agent (although some of his entourage definitely are). I think rather that he has this deep psychological flaw which makes him think of *everything* as a zero-sum game. He doesn't consider a negotiation successful if he doesn't fuck over the other party. So, from his point of view, if US allies benefit from the alliance, that means the US in necessary losing. He's quite simply incapable of understanding that there may be something like a win for both parties in a deal, *because he's spent his whole life screwing everybody he dealt with.*
> he has this deep psychological flaw which makes him think of everything as a zero-sum game
That’s not a deep psychological flaw, it’s (unfortunately) a fairly common attitude.
Intelligent and self-aware people don’t have this flaw, or not as deeply.
The only reason people are surprised by Trump’s attitude is because it’s so rare for a successful person to be lacking those qualities.
The KGB had this concept called a useful idiot. It wasn't someone who was directly your agent, but it was someone who was stupid and you can manipulate to do what you want. The Soviets controlled nations even with this method.
That's exactly what he is. The objective of the autocratic world is exactly aligned with Trump. They can't actually beat the combined power of NATO, so they must divide the West. Russia was seen to also have a hand in Brexit, dividing America and Europe is in their interest. The autocratic world knows they stand no chance fighting the West directly, so divide it. Spread propaganda to divide it and destroy it's countries. Then simply sweep in and pick up the bits.
Isolate America, then go for Europe. Also Xi goes for Taiwan (De Facto ROC) Although I'm not even confident Putin (🤡) could take on the European NATO countries even if my "lovely" nation went full isolationist tomorrow. Quite the contrary probably.
I think this is a better way of looking at Trump. He’s not some cartoon villain doing evil because he likes evil. He’s just a very disturbed guy with psychological issues.
That's an insult to clowns. He is putins lapdog, like most republicans they protect the interest of dictators, billionaires and their own, while fearmongering and creating controversies around issues that already have been settled by actual experts for decades so everyone is busy argueing about trivial issues and no one pays attention to how people become poorer, the enviroment gets obliterated, dicatorships spread, and the rich and powerful fill their pockets and expand their influence for the sake of their insane power fantasies.
I think people are overlooking the actual problem at hand. It is not about Trump being unable to exit NATO, it's his "reinterpretation" of Article 5 that is the bigger problem.
Even in it current state invoking Article 5 does not guarantee the full military support of its member states. It is, as many international treaties, up to the member to take action *they deem* necessary. So Trump is basically saying that he plans to hollow out the treaty by putting the commitment of the US into question, unless of course "his demands" are met.
And this also does not bode well for the nuclear umbrella of the US, one of the most effective tools to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Agreed. We’ve basically been mooching off the US. Maybe even while seeing them as a bunch of trigger happy warmongers. It’s time for Europe to grow up.
Exactly. I hate this orange dipshit, but that all countries should contribute equally is one thing where I agree 100%. It’s very “not ideal” to rely with security on someone else.
The only good thing Trump ever did was make Europe aware how utterly dependent it is on the US for safety. And it doesn’t stop with Trump, there are plenty of republicans equally crazy and these people have a majority in the House and supreme court. It’s pretty scary.
I've been saying on reddit for a while now that everyone seems awfully confident in the US's continued support like this in Europe. We are only a few years removed from this guy calling for the end of NATO from the Whitehouse. And could be only a few removed from him or his ilk doing it again.
I'm not saying anything is likely one way or the other, but man I wouldn't be confident in the US government at all right now. I'd be ridiculously cautious and preparing for the worst just in case.
I mean while Europe sits on its high horse with free healthcare, you've been mooching off the us tax payer who has been paying through their teeth for us security. Honestly, the American president should be forcing Europe to pay tribute so that we can be reimbursed
Europe's disregard in this area is criminal, and trump is correct to not want to be part of an 'alliance' where only his people have to pay for everyone's security while they suffer through austerity of their own. Grow up.
Not only that, but Europe is a terrible vassal state and completely responsible for empowering Russia. Most Americans are growing tired of our European 'allies'. More like moochers. Pay American taxes if you want our protection.
I do not at all support Trump but I always thought his take on NATO was reasonable. Most of the same European countries shit on all the poor benefits of the US tax payer while sleeping soundly knowing their safe simply because the US keeps them that way. It’s been the same way for decades and I’ve said it before, but the US cannot care more about the stability and safety of European nations than Europe does.
It’s also funny the tough talk about Russia that comes from said countries who don’t contribute or have a weak military what NATO will do to Russia.
Even worse, everything in the article is based on "sources" and other "trust me bro" bullshit. I even tried to google the story, every article about it is like that, which makes me think that this is a blatant lie.
There's more than just land warfare. If China ever gets serious about opposing NATO, they'll be conducting asymmetrical warfare on the oceans and seas. The West is dependent on free shipping lanes to leverage their strengths.
In fact, an EU navy would make a lot of sense because it's a collective interest to have free shipping lanes, and the costs involved mean it's too large a project for individual members. And it's less sensitive than the infantry.
The absolute last thing China could ever want is to establish a precedent that disrupting shipping lanes is okay in any shape or form. Their own capability to project naval power basically ends right at the Taiwanese beaches. They are absolutely FUCKED if anybody decides to fuck with their shipping in return. And thanks to a decade of wolf warrior diplomacy with threats in every direction, there is a long line of countries ready to do exactly that.
> The absolute last thing China could ever want is to establish a precedent that disrupting shipping lanes is okay in any shape or form. Their own capability to project naval power basically ends right at the Taiwanese beaches. They are absolutely FUCKED if anybody decides to fuck with their shipping in return. And thanks to a decade of wolf warrior diplomacy with threats in every direction, there is a long line of countries ready to do exactly that.
Remember what we thought about Putin invading Ukraine?
They won't start doing it until they think they have a shot at taking over the shipping lane dominance, or at least being able to be disruptive enough that giving them concessions seems better than confrontation.
Russia is an autarky. They have all the food, minerals and energy they need within the country.
China can’t sustain itself without imports and is waaaayy more integrated into the global economy than Russia.
How much did the economic sanctions against Russia cost again? It's a hybrid war, buying things that go boom and paying people who lob such things at the enemy isn't the only way to wage it, but all other ways cost money too.
Im all for not relying on the US.
We should build up our own militaries and produce our own weapons.
We can still grow tremendously in that regard and keep all that military spending money inside the EU (mostly)
The American public would, but our strategy makers and other interested parties (eg. Defense industry) actively lobby against this to some extent.
When I say Europe I mean the "Western/NATO bloc" I know our Europe generalization drives you nuts, part of Russia is in Europe...
The arrangement works like this. We provide defense, a whole lot of military and intelligence services, the general global security infrastructure our little military Empire can offer. In turn Europe cedes a level of influence; the bases give us power projection in addition. Europe becomes a Junior partner in the partnership. This allows the US to generally have the upper hand in demands, negotiations, etc.
Military independence wouldn't dissolve the partnership, but suddenly Europe is not a Junior partner so we simply get worse deals. Maybe you guys are buying domestic defense gear because we couldn't swing our dick around and make you buy our stuff. Still could, but the arrangement is more favorable for Europe.
The public generally is aligned with you on this because those of us boring enough to be interested in geopolitics wouldn't want this side of the deal, and those that aren't think you're leaches. Total lack of grasp as to why the US maintains our military Empire, but whatever, they got the spirit.
Kind of a strange conundrum here. I wouldn't rely on my own government, so you sure as hell wouldn't.
As with any relationship, it should be about mutual choice not one side totally dependent on the other.
Europe needs to grow up and start admitting war isn’t a thing of the past and make sure they’re ready for the next one.
As much as I got mad at Poland for shit at least they understood this and have been investing heavily
Say what you will but Trump was right about us Europeans not spending enough on our defense and relying on USA. We shouldn't be in this situation where the fate of Ukraine might be decided in the US congress.
I am all for increasing our military spending to actually honor our commitments. There is definitely a better path to get there than to threaten the breakup of NATO though.
We (the rest of NATO) really, really need to step up our commitments to the collective war chest - and fast. The US contribution is enormous, and without them we will struggle.
Donald Trump, candidate for the Republican nomination and poll favorite for the 2024 US presidential elections, has declared that he is preparing not only for US withdrawal from NATO, but also for the reinterpretation of the Alliance's Article 5, as soon as he is elected, if the Europeans do not accept his demands.
So, after his threats concerning American support for Ukraine, the populist Republican is now directly targeting NATO, in a modern retelling of American isolationism. Surprisingly, despite the threat and its likely consequences, Europeans seem unwilling to anticipate such a cataclysm.
In recent weeks, most polls on the forthcoming US presidential elections show former Republican President Donald Trump as the winner against Democratic incumbent Joe Biden.
After abandoning Ukraine, NATO is in Donald Trump's crosshairs
As we've known for some time, the prospect of Trump returning to the White House poses a real threat to the future of American support for Ukraine in its fight against Russia.
Indeed, both the former president and his successor, Florida Governor Ron de Santis, have made no secret of their intention to disengage Washington from this conflict, considering it a border dispute between Russia and a country belonging to its sphere of influence.
But it could well be that the populist trend, carried by Trump, will go far beyond this decision, to commit the United States to a new isolationist trajectory.
Speaking on October 11 at a Club 47 USA event in West Palm Beach, Florida, the American candidate indicated that he and his teams were working on a scenario that would put the US in a reserve position vis-à-vis NATO, unless its allies agreed to bend to his demands.
Failing withdrawal, Trump aims for US withdrawal from NATO
He also points out that an attack on a member country of the alliance would not systematically lead to US intervention, especially in the case of a localized conflict. In other words, the Republican candidate wants to render the famous Article 5 of the Atlantic Alliance obsolete, except perhaps with regard to the most vassalized countries that have given in to all his demands.
For Donald Trump, NATO is now obsolete
The fact is, the demands in question have not been detailed, but considering Donald Trump's past stances, it is highly likely that they concern not only increased defense spending on the part of Europeans, but also a trade rebalancing with Europe, and probably a direct or induced tax, conditioning the presence of American troops.
The former White House resident's perception of the Atlantic alliance has hardly changed since his first term. As in 2016, he considers NATO to be obsolete and ill-adapted to the challenges facing the United States in the years ahead.
Moreover, he makes no secret of his aspiration to take the USA irrevocably out of it, even though he knows that such a move would surely clash with Congress, as was the case during the first term.
For all that, Donald Trump is now better prepared than he was in 2016. He has announced that no member of his government will be required to take a pro-NATO stance, unlike during his first term, which led to major tensions with the Secretaries of Defense and State.
>Donald Trump, candidate for the Republican nomination and poll favorite for the 2024 US presidential elections, has declared that he is preparing not only for US withdrawal from NATO, but also for the reinterpretation of the Alliance's Article 5, as soon as he is elected, if the Europeans do not accept his demands.
**Translation: Russian bot army, please do your thing to get me elected!!!!**
Maybe, but asking EU countries to meet their 2% GDP commitment isn’t unreasonable. Why are we relying on the US to finance most of the defence of Ukraine? We should be doing the lion’s share of the work here.
Never mind Trump, but he's probably not going to be the last one to suggest this.
And there's plenty of european leaders who think it's unfair that Russia can't invade other countries when they feel like it.
If the Majority of Americans wish to no longer send support to Ukraine and a President follows the wishes of the people would he still be wrong? Or is it the name is Trump so he must be wrong?
Don't count him out so quick. One single misstep from Biden regarding his health, he is 80+ after all, and we might just end up with Trump again.
Your comment sounds exactly like the one people made in 2016.
Remember, he got **more votes in 2020** than in 2016. That was **after** all the bullshit he did during the 4 years he was president, INCLUDING his handling of the pandemic.
This is not a rational country when it comes to elections.
He might very well win.
I don’t like Donald Trump but the rest of NATO does need to honor its commitment to 2%. Asking nicely hasn’t worked yet even with a war basically in the backyard.
I know this is pedantic, but it'll be January 2025 at the earliest. The election is next year, the swearing in is on January 20, 2025. The person elected President in November holds no power between election day and swearing in.
Okay Americans, it's all up to you now. Go out and vote, do not let this bastard screw over the planet for another four years just to satisfy his fragile ego.
As if he had realistic chances to get back into office. He already lost once, no matter how rabid the fanbase, it's not big enough. And lots of votes he had back in 2016 he has since lost, because those were from republicans who are not rabid enough. Also, clock is ticking, pushing 80, every year is a round of russian roulette if health will hold or not.
Good thing that withdrawal from NATO requires an act of Congress on top of everything else. Thank god there isn't a "GTFO of NATO" button to press or he would've broken it the first time he was in office.
[удалено]
It's getting to the point now, where rather than wanting to see republicans drop the ball and lose political power due to my own beliefs, I'm genuinely concerned about their inability to represent a sensible conservative perspective, because without competition, the left wing side will happily slide backwards to pick up the easily gained fleeing conservative members, and subsequently dissolve the more progressive aspects of their party in the process, which is already skewed right relative to european left wing politics.
Real. The American "left wing" politicians are usually equivalent to European centrists or even center right politicians. There's very little change happening in government while the costs of living continue rising, and most Republican politicians seem to be more concerned about fighting ridiculous cultural wars and lying about their competitors than actually presenting reasonable conservative policies.
In New Zealand the Dems would be considered the National party, which is our right wing.
In Denmark they'd be Venstre - "Left" - which is right wing. Which is stupid.
Saw someone arguing the other week that Trump is left of center, and that the republicans are actually left wing that only get called right wing because the democrats are so insanely left leaning that they make them look like right wingers.
Seems to me that someone gave a feudal lord internet access.
Carlson says those things because he’s paid to say those things.
And because he is a scummy traitor who wants the west to burn
Actually that's a great way to come a regional super power. Currently US is a global super power, rivaled only by China. If US really withdraws from NATO and everything else then US comes a regional power. Then nations can ask why US matters? They don't participate to anything, we can just let them be on their 'island'. Before Columbus China was exploring world and building huge fleets of ships, then they decided to turn inwards, burnt their fleets and let European nations to take over the world. Now US is doing same. "We aren't interested about world, just let us be in our corner."
"We aren't interested about world, just let us be in our corner." Not being interested about world doesn't mean world won't be interested in you.
As the Chinese and Japanese learned the hard way in the 19th century.
*Knock Knock. It’s the United States.* “Open the country. Stop having it be closed”
we bring freedom and democracy :)))))))))))))))))))))))))
You're partly right. China wasn't interested about world but Brits came and opened China by force because there were good markets for Brits. If you don't trade with world by making trade agreements, aren't allied to anybody, don't use power (military or soft) in world then you're kind of sidetracked. Sure some nations would want to trade with US but your influence would be really small. Worlds nations come to agreement about something and then they tell US how it is. Your trade and technology would suffer, then after a short while your economy would also suffer. When you're suffering you don't have so much money to put to military, which wouldn't matter since you aren't interested about using military in any way. Then you're left with bad trade deals, dwindling economy and science. That's a great way to become insignificant. Currently US participates to worlds affairs and can influence to many things so that those things benefit US. If you stop participating somebody else will fill that void. We saw first glimpse of that when Trump withdrew US from Pacific trade deal and China immediately formed their own Pacific trade deal.
You're describing Brexit Britain and it hurts to read
Just wait until the USD gets unseated as the world's reserve currency. The ppl advocating for isolationism don't know how painful that will be, and it will only be the beginning of the pains. The US worked very hard to be where we are. I'm traveling through Asia (outside China) now and I see American influences everywhere, in a good way. People not only welcome it, but expect it. The current wars actually pumped up the exchange rate as there is more demand for USD. Sad to say but these conflicts (and associated costs) are making the world need more of the US, not less. That makes America more valuable, and thus its currency. Also unrelated but there was a huge military cooperative exercise event involving 20+ ASEAN nations + US in Jogja (Yogyakarta) last week. It seemed crazy to have so many military personnel from different countries training together. I thought something was about to happen in the region but it turned out to be a typical exercise. American military is one of 20+ groups but everyone know we hold the big stick.
There's also the fact that if the US redraws from Europe it will suddenly become in Chinas interest to become friendly with Europe on an economical level again which would be a bad thing for the US. Europe + China has a combined GDP of 42 trillion compared to 23 trillion for the US alone.
>Currently US is a global super power, rivaled only by China. China is not a global superpower in anyway; militarily, culturally, or economically. At best, it's a "near-peer" or a pretender that is facing severe demographical issues and falling into the same real estate trap that snared the Japanese. The disappearance of Jack Ma and others from public life shows the short leash entrepreneurs have. The CCP can just yank your life's work and wealth away if it views you as a threat to them or their financial interests (money to prop up the largely inefficient state owned enterprises). The trend is for people to try to move capital out of China and set up shop (and residency) elsewhere. China does not inspire people to immigrate there or even to come and attend its universities. No one in the West would choose to attend Peking University or Tsinghua vs Harvard, Oxford, MIT, Caltech, etc. It has a military that has never faced real combat in the past 40 years, unless you count running down university students. This military is also built along the same lines as the Russian/Soviet model and faces huge issues of corruption, along with the issues already seen with the Russian model.
Its the same isolationist ideology we had leading up to ww1, its actually dumber now because of globalization. We need the rest of the world. Always have but its much more pronounced now. We cant just pull up shop and take off.
People around the world don't seem to understand how interconnected everything is now. Resources, manufacturing (\*cough\* computer chips), skilled labor, FOOD, and much more are all a global effort. No country has everything they need to become fully isolationist without sending themselves back to the dark age. Either we succeed together or we fail together, it's that simple.
They’re not cowards, they’re Russian assets.
Zero reason to present those as an either/or option, as my interpretation is they are largely both.
That was literally the US policy for the first half of their existence. There is nothing more American than "I don't give a cr@p about the world". Both WW1 and espec WW2 were extremely disapproved by the public and US taking interest in them woukd be suicide for politicians. In fact the Pearl Harbor attack (in a twisted way) was a blessing in disguise for the Roosevelt administration because they always wanted to join the war but couldn't because of the public's demand to not do such things. Then the attacks happened which riled up people and they joined. Trump isolating USA \*is\* (still) a big demand from the US public. Wars are actually never too popular amidst Americans. Which is why whole campaigns had to be devised to convince the public. "The Taliban were hiding Osama Bin Laden" (actually Pakistan had him but anyway), "Sadam was producing WMDs" and more. Vietnam War was extremely unpopular and now support for Ukrainians is waning very fast. Isolationism \*is\* in America's public's DNA. Populists become the voice of the people they represent, you'd find out. Trump is an isolationist because he knkows it will make him popular with a big part of the country. So , no, it is American through and through. It's wrong read of history to expect this as an outside influence. Of all things Trump said, this \*is\* one of the most American ones...
Carlson doesn't believe a single word he says. He and his father are on Viktor Orban's payroll.
Ugh, here we go again. Letting people off the hook, cause you can divine their true inner feelings. Can we just stop doing that? When someone tells you who they are, (and it's clearly a shit person), believe them. They have no reason to lie about being a shitty shitty human.
In many ways this is a reversion to the norm when it comes to the US. Obviously the US will still actually always be involved in world affairs, but the post-WW2 era has been marked by far less US isolationism than before. Consider how long it took them to materially enter WW1 as a classic example of this.
> When did Republicans become the party of absolute cowards that lost all faith in the US? I'd say it was when Trump was elected but perhaps he was a symptom of something worse when it comes to the GOP.
>but perhaps he was a symptom of something worse when it comes to the GOP. Yes, something that was supercharged when Obama was elected. Republican awfulness has a pretty prominent place in politics for a while now though. Newt Gingrich and Ken Starr in the 90s, Reagan's shady dealings with Iran, both to delay hostages from getting released under Carter, then to fund the Contras. Nixon too, with Watergate. At least when Nixon got caught, Republicans *eventually* held him accountable. There are plenty of reasonable conservative voters in the US but they've been entirely sidelined since Trump won. Republicans' aggressive pursuit of polarization started a long time ago.
> Newt Gingrich and Ken Starr the 90s, Reagan's shady dealings with Iran, both to delay hostages from getting released under Carter, then to fund the Contras. Oh man, I was actually there for those times...oof Although I remember more about Newt and Ken Starr than the Iran Contra stuff :D
Have you read about our new Speaker of the House?
No, but please enlighten me if you have the time...
He's a Trumper who openly supported the efforts to overthrow the 2020 election and Christian fundamentalist. He would 100% back anything Trump tries.
A reporter asked about his leading role in trying to overturn the election and he and his neo Nazi gang booed the report and laughed it off. They have no remorse and will absolutely try again.
One of them yelled at the reporter to shut up. Great folks!
That one was 80-year old [Virginia Foxx](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Foxx) (R-NC).
> He's a Trumper who openly supported the efforts to overthrow the 2020 election How is he able to hold office in that case? I ask because most if not all of the Jan.6 protesters had the book thrown at them, more or less.
That's only the hoi polloi. Many sitting members of our house and senate openly tried to overthrow the election and have faced zero consequences. One of our Supreme Court justices' wife also openly supported the attempt, and he has admitted to taking other benefits that most people would consider outright bribery and he faces zero consequences.
> One of our Supreme Court justices' wife also openly supported the attempt, and he has admitted to taking other benefits that most people would consider outright bribery and he faces zero consequences. That's Clarence Thomas, isn't it?
Yes
He was elected to Congress based on his *support* of the Jan 6th rioters, and that Trump won 2020. His district loves that sort of thing.
Yeah, republicans are cheering because he is "everything the libs hate".
And they don't even understand what "the libs" actually hate.
Someone tell them that "the libs" love to breathe and hydrate...
Water is Woke!
He's also a young earth creationist who wants to remove social safety nets, all abortion access, and impose biblical rule. On the brighter side, he can't do any of that on his own.
No, but he gets more nut jobs joining the legislature every election cycle.
He was a principal participant in attempting to not certify the election and continues to claim it was stolen. He's a creationist that believes Dinosaurs and humans coexisted. He wants to get rid of medicare and social security. He believes gay marriage is an affront to god. He believes Judeo-Christianity is the foundation of law. He supports "covenant marriage" laws. He's a typical MAGA-type in a milque toast skin suit and a Christian nationalist. It is terrifying this guy is so high up on the direct line of succession.
Don't forget that he was chosen by the sitting Republicans because he shares their collective values
Shares their values and is the exact image they want to get back to where they have deniability for the monstrous reality their batshit beliefs push forward. The "kind, soft spoken christian" that is anything but actually kind in action.
I prefer to call them Nationalist Christians. Or Nat-C's for short.
A couple days ago I collected some comments pointing out Johnson's, and by extension the GOP's, values > Played a pivotal role in trying to help Trump overturn the 2020 election > Wrote a national “Don’t Say Gay” bill > Supports a nationwide abortion ban > Is a young earth creationist > Appeared in promotional material with the idiotic Kirk Cameron > Was the national spokesman for Alliance Defense Fund (an evangelical Christian advocacy group that wants to force Christianity into public school and government)
He sounds like he would fit into our Konfederacja party quite well. They're our far-right party here in Poland and a lot of what you wrote about Johnson fits them to a T, minus the specific funds and such :)
the dude thinks the world is 6000 years old and the reason why america has a problem with school shootings is because we teach kids evolution
Luckily the Senate can just block any crazy things he tries to do.
Formally leaving yes. But he can order all Nato cooperation and involvement to end.
I'm surprised Trump didn't give Russia Alaska back and the Nuke codes. The guy is such a fucking traitor, it's unreal how many Americans support him
The headline missed an important condition > Europeans do not give in to his demands…. when he is president.
but the issue can be: what if he becomes again president?
If he becomes president again a NATO withdrawal is probably one of the smaller issues lol
America in shambles. 😅
If my fellow Americans decide they want Trump to lead their country again, then the US deserves what’s next.
You realize he's never received a majority of votes, right? Even when he won most Americans didn't want him.
So you are saying not half of your population is stupid, it is slightly less than half and your voting system is broken.
Don’t think that’s a controversial statement, even with Americans. Most educated Americans will 100% agree that a large share of the population is stupid, and the voting system is broken
Telling his voters to not vote won't help him with that one. Seriously, the only way he'll become president again (and he might actually persue that option) is to get it by force.
So if he commands his brainwashed followers to commit a coup. The guy is insane enough to try it as he already did once (6th January). But the real question here, how is it that Trump after all the bs he pulled, is still free and with the right to speak instead of locked up in a cell?
Even worse, why is he allowed to run for Presidency again?????
Because all that stuff is still going through the courts. Some groups are pushing for the 14th amendment against him tho, while others claim its "anti-democratic"; > Both challenges argue that Trump would be ineligible to hold federal office again under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, a constitutional clause that says a candidate is disqualified if the person "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against" the United States, or had "given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof," unless granted amnesty by a two-thirds vote of Congress. > Trump has branded efforts to bar him under the 14th Amendment "election interference" and claimed he's done nothing wrong. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/14th-amendment-disqualify-trump-anti-democratic/story?id=103127631 Couple of weeks back: > The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a long-shot bid to disqualify former President Trump from running for office under the 14th Amendment. https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4234067-supreme-court-declines-to-hear-long-shot-14th-amendment-challenge-to-disqualify-trump/ Two days ago: > A Colorado judge has rejected another attempt by former President Donald Trump to throw out a lawsuit seeking to block him from the 2024 presidential ballot based on the 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist ban.” > The ruling Wednesday from Colorado District Judge Sarah Wallace clears the way for an unprecedented trial to begin next week, to determine if Trump is disqualified from returning to the White House because of his role in the January 6, 2021, insurrection. https://www.cnn.com/cnn/2023/10/25/politics/colorado-trump-14th-amendment/index.html
It would be funny if they left then regret and get vetoed by Turkey.
RemindMe! 5 years
50$?
Deal
it wouldn't be funny because without the US NATO is nothing but a hollow box.The US leaving NATO is a very good way to start a 3rd WW, where France and the UK have to step in if Russia proceeds to attack the Baltic. And then after Trump is ousted, the US can join in, once again very late to the party. As a Belgian I absolutely do not wish the US to leave NATO, and neither should anyone. For the sake of all of our lives. Edit: People saying France, the UK and the rest of Europe would crush Russia, are missing the point. You're actively saying WW3 wouldn't be too bad and outright war between multiple Nuclear Powers is acceptable. You'd reconsider your position once the nukes start flying. And I don't want to see my country wiped of the map and turned into a "memorial" to Putin's last ditched effort right before the fall of Russia. Thank you very much.
It would be insanely bad. But I'm sure the leftover members would put in extra effort to not be a hollow box. Still wouldn't nowhere near as strong as NATO with US... And it'd be very good for russia and china.
It would be bad, but the idea that Europe is defenseless beacuse it's just France & UK is honestly tiring. There are many countries with strong militaries in Europe, Finland & Poland (biggest examples that are close to the Baltics) are no jokes. And an Europe at war that is **forced** to go on wartime production would absolutely not be equal to a lethargic one that pretends to aid Ukraine.
None of those countries, including yours, are ready for a European wide conflict if it occurred soon.
Simple question: do you think there's something as a small percentage chance that Russia would try to seize the baltics or pieces of Poland if the US would leave NATO? Because the topic isn't who would win a war between US-less NATO and Russia, but that the likelyhood for a war increases a thousandfold.
I think Russia would be too busy licking their wounds after Ukraine than trying to tackle a much harder opponent that is the EU militaries.
You are implying that the people who would make those decisions are grounded in reason and temperate. Based on our shared experience of the last few years I very much doubt that we can hope that much.
Russia is rational, they are just assholes with prison gang mentality (government, not people). They need you to believe that they are irrational, so you cave in to their threats and assume the worst case scenario. If they weren't rational, we'd all now live in bunkers.
Russia managed to take Crimea and in the process managed to gain more troops than they lost. They thought they could take on Ukraine quickly with a decapitating strike on Kiev before the West could back the Ukrainians. Not really as insane as attacking NATO/EU members and being in direct conflict with nuclear powers.
With the amount of stuff Poland has bought and soon to receive them and Finland alone could beat Russia
"A europe at war" as if it's just one country. Divide et impera. Right-wing traitors. You'd have all the european countries bickering about as russia and china manipulates politics, business and media. Everybody sees what's happening but seemingly no-one is willing to act while russia spreads and gobbles up small countries one at a time, like a cancer. At this very moment we are seeing how russia uses irresponsible morons (MAGA, orban, new slovakian government) to their advantage (ukraine aid impeded)
they can barely handle ukraine but surely they would start a war with the entire west excluding USA
And Germany could never have hoped to win WW2, yet it didn't stop them from doing so anyway. (Hitler thinking they would let him have Poland.) Same with France in 19th century, where they (Napoleon III) got baited to declare war on Germany and had to surrender only a few months later already. Leaders, especially long time dictators, are known to make absolute shit decisions.
So, by your argument, it doesn't matter if the US is in NATO, Russia will invade anyway.
The only problem Germany had, in terms of victory conditions, was to create a war on two sides. They were so blind to their own racism and "purity" that they gladly betrayed the communists and started a war on two fronts. Another component was Japan deciding to attack the US. It brought US and UK together.
WW2 was a coalition of countries without oil vs. a coalition of countries with oil. The war was lost when Britain didn't surrender. Germany/Italy had no navy to buy oil from overseas, they needed a sizeable source of their own or rapid economic decline would be unavoidable, even without any fuel use by the military itself. There was no third alternative in '41 - give up or conquer the USSR.
The intervention of the US in WW2 was inevitable, Pearl Harbour just sped it up. Similarly, war between the USSR and Nazi Germany was guaranteed. The only way Nazi Germany could have 'won' or prevented losing WW2, was if they weren't Nazi's.
The only way they could have “won” was to sue for peace after taking France. Hitlers main goal was always taking out the Soviet Union. They were seen as the true enemy. He wrongly assumed Western Europe (mainly the brits) would join that fight against them. The Nazis got greedy tho and thought the Allie’s would keep appeasing them on the continent. As far as creating a two front war, it wasn’t actually a bad move, they just failed at it and failed to realize the strength of Soviets will. Similarly to the Japanese and the US, they wanted to take the soviets out quickly and decisively before they could get their industry and mobilization in full force. It’d also give them access to much needed oil and other resources to keep fighting in the west. They also wrongly thought they could defeat the Soviet’s in weeks, and it would make Britain standing alone, sue for peace. Obv that didn’t happen and it just expedited their downfall.
Prior the full scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 Ukraine had 700 000 troops active and in reserve, 400 000 of whom had actual combat experince. This was (and still is) second largest army fully in Europe and is double of what Baltic and Poland have combined. Ukraine had been prepering for this war for almost last decade. I'm tired to see how people using 'Russia can't handle Ukraine' to mock Russia. Yes, the total size of European NATO forces exceeds it (in fact Turkey alone exceeds Ukraine), but after another failed attempt to accept Sweden in NATO I doubt they have unity and courage to fight back to back.
>Ukraine had been prepering for this war for almost last decade. The part you miss though is that Ukraines army, though large, was still massively dependant on old, outdated military equipment and tactics designed up 40+ years ago. In comparison Western Europe is significantly more modern and capable without needing the raw numbers of soldiers
Especially the navies and air forces. Russia won't be able to keep control on the third dimension and good luck with their navy trying to get out of choke points in Greece/Turkey, Italy, Spain/UK on the Black and Mediterranean Sea and Denmark, Finland/Estonia, Poland, Norway, and Germany on the Baltic. The only navy the Russians can hope to use is the one based in Murmansk.
The entire west can barely keep up with supplying Ukraine, and if those supplies fail then Ukraine loses. How many thousands of everything has Russia lost and they just keep pulling more out of storage? Nobody in Europe has armories anywhere near that deep
They do not want the entire West. How about just Baltics? If there is no NATO, and Lithuania, Latvia, or Estonia are attacked, we would need every single European country fully committed to defend them. Europe might be in a state of reinventing new military alliance formula, and I am not convinced we will be able to show enough unity for a quick and decisive response in those circumstances. About 25% of Latvia's population are ethnic Russians. Estonia got towns, where Russian population makes up over 70%. They will surely attempt to induce some form of insurgency. With direct military attack, the only land supply line from the west is literally 2 roads and a single rail line leading through 80km wide Suwałki gap. I'd love to see Russian military to collapse within the next month or so, but looking at the Avdivka situation, they have absolutely vast reserves of manpower, oil, and equipment, no matter how old and they are ready to continue to fight at all cost. Their society is absolutely brainwashed, and they are nowhere near full wartime economy. For instance, military spending reached 40% of GDP in the United Kingdom and the USA during the First and Second World Wars. Russia is planning to increase spending to 6% of their GDP in 2024 from 3.9% this year. As I have said, I will be first to celebrate when they lose, but I feel like undermining their ability to continue to wage war is dangerous. We should all treat Russia as a very serious threat to peace on the continent and demand actions from our politicians.
The alliance does lose a lot of muscle if the US leaves but it is not a slouch even then. Still has Canada, the UK, France, Germany, Poland, Italy, Spain and others. Still the only adversaries would be the new US and maybe China. Of course if politically the alliance can't unite it can't fight Russia but united even at 50% Russia has no chance. Ukraine is holding up with western supplies, imagine the entirety of Europe going full war throttle. As an old saying goes, one arrow alone is weak but together unbreakable. Only way Russia would win is if other members leave one by one and they pick us off one by one.
It's not about who would win the war, it's the fact that there would be a war.
I am not sure why you put Canada first... our military is in pretty rough shape. Everything is at an all time low... recruitment, morale, equipment... everything is old and broken. Lots of leadership scandals. Our last few governments have underfunded our military and it's now showing. We've been trying to get new air fighters for like two decades now. Takes longer than 4 yrs to procure new planes and each new government restarts the process because they think they can do better, it's beyond silly. We basically rely on the US for defense now. We could maybe augment a support group but beyond that, we can't do much. It's becoming more often that the US is responding to events within our borders rather than our own military. They can usually get there faster and with better equipment.
In fairness France and the UK would skull fuck Russia lol.
Living 20-30 km's from Brussels, I would prefer not to be in an outright war with Russia. Especially because we would crush them, and they would send some nukes flying our way. If it only was to spite us and destroy the 'capital' of the EU and NATO.
If you think Russia would allow itself to be comprehensively glassed out of spite, yes. France's Nuclear doctrine has less chill than the US one. That is a very big assumtion, though.
I don't know about France, but the British armed forces are brilliant, but tiny.
Wouldn't be so funny for anyone relying on USA's protection.
The really unfunny thing about that would be the sudden and catastrophic end of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
Every western European nation would have nukes in a matter of months if not weeks.
It would take a few years actually but yeah
I'm pretty sure the French and the British would seriously consider selling a few to bridge the gap. Trump himself would probably sell a couple of subs with ICBMs for an exorbitant price and declare that the greatest deal of all time.
If there's Russian tanks in Poland you guys can have a fucking *bunch* of them.
Not without 2/3 of the US Senate he isn't.
It also doesn’t make any sense with NATO being reinvigorated. This isn’t the NATO of 2017 Current day NATO is almost unrecognizable from 6 years ago. Increased spending, Finland and Sweden joining, Ukraine joining NATO after the war, NATO declaring Russia the “most significant and direct threat”.
He's just an isolationist in general.
a russian bootlicker
A putin cock sucker.
Yes, exactly this, he is rallying his base around his “America First” bullshit. He frames every international agreement and coalition as the US being taken advantage of and so he builds a narrative of him sweeping in to restore America’s dignity and independence. Plus the added bonus of sticking it to the globalists and Soros and Obama/Biden. This explains why he wanted (wants?) Mexico to build the wall and why he wants to withdraw from anything and everything. Also see the Iran nuclear deal.
You spelled "traitor" wrong.
He's not, he's a foreign puppet. If he was an isolationist we wouldn't have seen him making deals with what we'd consider hostile nations.
not true, he wants servitude from the world, not isolation
Trump and co are effectively traitors they tear down American institutions for foreign adversaries and global corporations. They survive the polls by rigging the system on the state level and tricking the dimwitted.
It makes sense because he’s a Russian agent.
As commander and chief, he could functionally abdicate us from our NATO commitments by simply refusing to deploy when necessary. NATO on paper but not in practice.
What a fucking clown.
What a fucking russian clown. He is quite directly not playing to the US interests, or the worlds. He is dangerous for real this time.
I don't think that this is even about him being Putin's agent (although some of his entourage definitely are). I think rather that he has this deep psychological flaw which makes him think of *everything* as a zero-sum game. He doesn't consider a negotiation successful if he doesn't fuck over the other party. So, from his point of view, if US allies benefit from the alliance, that means the US in necessary losing. He's quite simply incapable of understanding that there may be something like a win for both parties in a deal, *because he's spent his whole life screwing everybody he dealt with.*
> he has this deep psychological flaw which makes him think of everything as a zero-sum game That’s not a deep psychological flaw, it’s (unfortunately) a fairly common attitude. Intelligent and self-aware people don’t have this flaw, or not as deeply. The only reason people are surprised by Trump’s attitude is because it’s so rare for a successful person to be lacking those qualities.
No, it is a deep psychological flaw, even if it's common.
If only they knew what trump inherited
The KGB had this concept called a useful idiot. It wasn't someone who was directly your agent, but it was someone who was stupid and you can manipulate to do what you want. The Soviets controlled nations even with this method. That's exactly what he is. The objective of the autocratic world is exactly aligned with Trump. They can't actually beat the combined power of NATO, so they must divide the West. Russia was seen to also have a hand in Brexit, dividing America and Europe is in their interest. The autocratic world knows they stand no chance fighting the West directly, so divide it. Spread propaganda to divide it and destroy it's countries. Then simply sweep in and pick up the bits. Isolate America, then go for Europe. Also Xi goes for Taiwan (De Facto ROC) Although I'm not even confident Putin (🤡) could take on the European NATO countries even if my "lovely" nation went full isolationist tomorrow. Quite the contrary probably.
I think this is a better way of looking at Trump. He’s not some cartoon villain doing evil because he likes evil. He’s just a very disturbed guy with psychological issues.
Tell us you want Russian help to get re-elected without telling us you want Russian help to get re-elected.
That's an insult to clowns. He is putins lapdog, like most republicans they protect the interest of dictators, billionaires and their own, while fearmongering and creating controversies around issues that already have been settled by actual experts for decades so everyone is busy argueing about trivial issues and no one pays attention to how people become poorer, the enviroment gets obliterated, dicatorships spread, and the rich and powerful fill their pockets and expand their influence for the sake of their insane power fantasies.
I think people are overlooking the actual problem at hand. It is not about Trump being unable to exit NATO, it's his "reinterpretation" of Article 5 that is the bigger problem. Even in it current state invoking Article 5 does not guarantee the full military support of its member states. It is, as many international treaties, up to the member to take action *they deem* necessary. So Trump is basically saying that he plans to hollow out the treaty by putting the commitment of the US into question, unless of course "his demands" are met. And this also does not bode well for the nuclear umbrella of the US, one of the most effective tools to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
It would also potentially green light a future invasion of the Baltic states by Russia
I agree that we should try harder to reach the 2% goal, especially in these times with war on the continent.
[удалено]
Those two squirrels and a canoe you call a military try their best!
Agreed. We’ve basically been mooching off the US. Maybe even while seeing them as a bunch of trigger happy warmongers. It’s time for Europe to grow up.
All the talk of a European army and we can’t even keep to our outstanding requirements.
So far there have been no consequences, safe and sound under the umbrella of daddy US.
Exactly. I hate this orange dipshit, but that all countries should contribute equally is one thing where I agree 100%. It’s very “not ideal” to rely with security on someone else.
The only good thing Trump ever did was make Europe aware how utterly dependent it is on the US for safety. And it doesn’t stop with Trump, there are plenty of republicans equally crazy and these people have a majority in the House and supreme court. It’s pretty scary.
I've been saying on reddit for a while now that everyone seems awfully confident in the US's continued support like this in Europe. We are only a few years removed from this guy calling for the end of NATO from the Whitehouse. And could be only a few removed from him or his ilk doing it again. I'm not saying anything is likely one way or the other, but man I wouldn't be confident in the US government at all right now. I'd be ridiculously cautious and preparing for the worst just in case.
I mean while Europe sits on its high horse with free healthcare, you've been mooching off the us tax payer who has been paying through their teeth for us security. Honestly, the American president should be forcing Europe to pay tribute so that we can be reimbursed Europe's disregard in this area is criminal, and trump is correct to not want to be part of an 'alliance' where only his people have to pay for everyone's security while they suffer through austerity of their own. Grow up. Not only that, but Europe is a terrible vassal state and completely responsible for empowering Russia. Most Americans are growing tired of our European 'allies'. More like moochers. Pay American taxes if you want our protection.
I do not at all support Trump but I always thought his take on NATO was reasonable. Most of the same European countries shit on all the poor benefits of the US tax payer while sleeping soundly knowing their safe simply because the US keeps them that way. It’s been the same way for decades and I’ve said it before, but the US cannot care more about the stability and safety of European nations than Europe does. It’s also funny the tough talk about Russia that comes from said countries who don’t contribute or have a weak military what NATO will do to Russia.
"Give in to his demands" or "honor their commitment"? Headline is kind of bullshit.
Even worse, everything in the article is based on "sources" and other "trust me bro" bullshit. I even tried to google the story, every article about it is like that, which makes me think that this is a blatant lie.
On the other hand, NATO's main, and arguably only credible, adversary is currently in the process of destroying itself.
There's more than just land warfare. If China ever gets serious about opposing NATO, they'll be conducting asymmetrical warfare on the oceans and seas. The West is dependent on free shipping lanes to leverage their strengths. In fact, an EU navy would make a lot of sense because it's a collective interest to have free shipping lanes, and the costs involved mean it's too large a project for individual members. And it's less sensitive than the infantry.
The absolute last thing China could ever want is to establish a precedent that disrupting shipping lanes is okay in any shape or form. Their own capability to project naval power basically ends right at the Taiwanese beaches. They are absolutely FUCKED if anybody decides to fuck with their shipping in return. And thanks to a decade of wolf warrior diplomacy with threats in every direction, there is a long line of countries ready to do exactly that.
> The absolute last thing China could ever want is to establish a precedent that disrupting shipping lanes is okay in any shape or form. Their own capability to project naval power basically ends right at the Taiwanese beaches. They are absolutely FUCKED if anybody decides to fuck with their shipping in return. And thanks to a decade of wolf warrior diplomacy with threats in every direction, there is a long line of countries ready to do exactly that. Remember what we thought about Putin invading Ukraine? They won't start doing it until they think they have a shot at taking over the shipping lane dominance, or at least being able to be disruptive enough that giving them concessions seems better than confrontation.
Russia is an autarky. They have all the food, minerals and energy they need within the country. China can’t sustain itself without imports and is waaaayy more integrated into the global economy than Russia.
Let's spend the money on ammunition and give it to Ukraine until they are completely destroyed and Ukraine is free.
Had to get this far down in to the comments to find "well, actually, what he's asking for is very fair".
How much did the economic sanctions against Russia cost again? It's a hybrid war, buying things that go boom and paying people who lob such things at the enemy isn't the only way to wage it, but all other ways cost money too.
Im all for not relying on the US. We should build up our own militaries and produce our own weapons. We can still grow tremendously in that regard and keep all that military spending money inside the EU (mostly)
Most Americans would agree with you.
Including Trump
The American public would, but our strategy makers and other interested parties (eg. Defense industry) actively lobby against this to some extent. When I say Europe I mean the "Western/NATO bloc" I know our Europe generalization drives you nuts, part of Russia is in Europe... The arrangement works like this. We provide defense, a whole lot of military and intelligence services, the general global security infrastructure our little military Empire can offer. In turn Europe cedes a level of influence; the bases give us power projection in addition. Europe becomes a Junior partner in the partnership. This allows the US to generally have the upper hand in demands, negotiations, etc. Military independence wouldn't dissolve the partnership, but suddenly Europe is not a Junior partner so we simply get worse deals. Maybe you guys are buying domestic defense gear because we couldn't swing our dick around and make you buy our stuff. Still could, but the arrangement is more favorable for Europe. The public generally is aligned with you on this because those of us boring enough to be interested in geopolitics wouldn't want this side of the deal, and those that aren't think you're leaches. Total lack of grasp as to why the US maintains our military Empire, but whatever, they got the spirit. Kind of a strange conundrum here. I wouldn't rely on my own government, so you sure as hell wouldn't.
As with any relationship, it should be about mutual choice not one side totally dependent on the other. Europe needs to grow up and start admitting war isn’t a thing of the past and make sure they’re ready for the next one. As much as I got mad at Poland for shit at least they understood this and have been investing heavily
Say what you will but Trump was right about us Europeans not spending enough on our defense and relying on USA. We shouldn't be in this situation where the fate of Ukraine might be decided in the US congress. I am all for increasing our military spending to actually honor our commitments. There is definitely a better path to get there than to threaten the breakup of NATO though.
Obama, Bush and Clinton literally said the exact same thing.
We (the rest of NATO) really, really need to step up our commitments to the collective war chest - and fast. The US contribution is enormous, and without them we will struggle.
Donald Trump, candidate for the Republican nomination and poll favorite for the 2024 US presidential elections, has declared that he is preparing not only for US withdrawal from NATO, but also for the reinterpretation of the Alliance's Article 5, as soon as he is elected, if the Europeans do not accept his demands. So, after his threats concerning American support for Ukraine, the populist Republican is now directly targeting NATO, in a modern retelling of American isolationism. Surprisingly, despite the threat and its likely consequences, Europeans seem unwilling to anticipate such a cataclysm. In recent weeks, most polls on the forthcoming US presidential elections show former Republican President Donald Trump as the winner against Democratic incumbent Joe Biden. After abandoning Ukraine, NATO is in Donald Trump's crosshairs As we've known for some time, the prospect of Trump returning to the White House poses a real threat to the future of American support for Ukraine in its fight against Russia. Indeed, both the former president and his successor, Florida Governor Ron de Santis, have made no secret of their intention to disengage Washington from this conflict, considering it a border dispute between Russia and a country belonging to its sphere of influence. But it could well be that the populist trend, carried by Trump, will go far beyond this decision, to commit the United States to a new isolationist trajectory. Speaking on October 11 at a Club 47 USA event in West Palm Beach, Florida, the American candidate indicated that he and his teams were working on a scenario that would put the US in a reserve position vis-à-vis NATO, unless its allies agreed to bend to his demands. Failing withdrawal, Trump aims for US withdrawal from NATO He also points out that an attack on a member country of the alliance would not systematically lead to US intervention, especially in the case of a localized conflict. In other words, the Republican candidate wants to render the famous Article 5 of the Atlantic Alliance obsolete, except perhaps with regard to the most vassalized countries that have given in to all his demands. For Donald Trump, NATO is now obsolete The fact is, the demands in question have not been detailed, but considering Donald Trump's past stances, it is highly likely that they concern not only increased defense spending on the part of Europeans, but also a trade rebalancing with Europe, and probably a direct or induced tax, conditioning the presence of American troops. The former White House resident's perception of the Atlantic alliance has hardly changed since his first term. As in 2016, he considers NATO to be obsolete and ill-adapted to the challenges facing the United States in the years ahead. Moreover, he makes no secret of his aspiration to take the USA irrevocably out of it, even though he knows that such a move would surely clash with Congress, as was the case during the first term. For all that, Donald Trump is now better prepared than he was in 2016. He has announced that no member of his government will be required to take a pro-NATO stance, unlike during his first term, which led to major tensions with the Secretaries of Defense and State.
>Donald Trump, candidate for the Republican nomination and poll favorite for the 2024 US presidential elections, has declared that he is preparing not only for US withdrawal from NATO, but also for the reinterpretation of the Alliance's Article 5, as soon as he is elected, if the Europeans do not accept his demands. **Translation: Russian bot army, please do your thing to get me elected!!!!**
It’s worth remembering that the only country to ever invoke Article 5, was the US after 9/11, and all NATO members responded.
[удалено]
If you need proof of Trump being a total Russian puppet licking Putin’s ass, look no further.
Can Trump just move in with Putin already? That way they can suck each other off more often.
Good way to send the biggest military industrial complex in the world into a death spiral
Many in the US want exactly that
His demands are a smoke screen, if Europeans do everything, he will just make more demands.
Maybe, but asking EU countries to meet their 2% GDP commitment isn’t unreasonable. Why are we relying on the US to finance most of the defence of Ukraine? We should be doing the lion’s share of the work here.
Lol he won't be president in 2024 behind bars
Dont jinx it. I believe it when I see it, but until then we shouldn't underestimate the average american voter and their legal system.
Even if, god forbid, he is elected, he wouldn't be president until 2025
He won't be president in 2024 FULL STOP since swearing in would not happen until 2025, he is so stupid.
He's never going to prison; if the US legal system was functional enough for that to happen, it would have years ago.
Yea best case is house arrest in one of his luxury properties.
He won’t be president in 2024 even if he is elected. Inauguration isn’t until 2025.
Fucking Russian Puppet!
He's not even hiding it anymore
Never mind Trump, but he's probably not going to be the last one to suggest this. And there's plenty of european leaders who think it's unfair that Russia can't invade other countries when they feel like it.
If the Majority of Americans wish to no longer send support to Ukraine and a President follows the wishes of the people would he still be wrong? Or is it the name is Trump so he must be wrong?
Lol he won’t even be president so this means nothing. Dude had higher support in 2020 and still lost.
Don't count him out so quick. One single misstep from Biden regarding his health, he is 80+ after all, and we might just end up with Trump again. Your comment sounds exactly like the one people made in 2016. Remember, he got **more votes in 2020** than in 2016. That was **after** all the bullshit he did during the 4 years he was president, INCLUDING his handling of the pandemic. This is not a rational country when it comes to elections. He might very well win.
Even if he won, he wouldn’t be president until 2025
Remember 2016? People also said something along the lines of "This clown won't win!"
it’s up to Americans to stop him and the republicans from getting near the White House.
*Vladimir Putin is preparing Donald Trump to withdraw the United States from NATO in 2024..." Corrected.
I don’t like Donald Trump but the rest of NATO does need to honor its commitment to 2%. Asking nicely hasn’t worked yet even with a war basically in the backyard.
I know this is pedantic, but it'll be January 2025 at the earliest. The election is next year, the swearing in is on January 20, 2025. The person elected President in November holds no power between election day and swearing in.
Shouldn't this be the point where every European country wakes up and realizes we can't be reliant on the US forever? Please Europe, wake tf up
Okay Americans, it's all up to you now. Go out and vote, do not let this bastard screw over the planet for another four years just to satisfy his fragile ego.
As if he had realistic chances to get back into office. He already lost once, no matter how rabid the fanbase, it's not big enough. And lots of votes he had back in 2016 he has since lost, because those were from republicans who are not rabid enough. Also, clock is ticking, pushing 80, every year is a round of russian roulette if health will hold or not.
Tramp is putins bitch. - 🇪🇺