NATO literally only came together to fight exactly once. When America asked it to. The fuck more do they want?
Time to throw the US out. They are a cancer
I think it’s still better to have them in pissing out, than have them out pissing in. Especially because Trump would take it personally like he takes everything.
Anyway eventually Trump is going to be going to be gone one way or another and then maybe the US will elect someone sane.
“If an American president says he no longer wishes to defend the other allies and leaves a NATO summit in protest, then the NATO treaty and its security guarantee aren’t worth very much,” Stoltenberg wrote.
This is absolute bullshit, BTW. NATO leaders have a history of seriously overvaluing the necessity of the US to the alliance.
Yes, obviously, having the world’s biggest military power on your side is a really good thing. But, with or without the US, NATO can still be a force for mutual defence. It’s a far better thing to have than not have, and defeatist bullshit like this is just kicking the trusses out for no good reason.
The issue is that the US provides a lot of logistics and supply chain support to the rest of NATO countries which makes it very difficult for them to operate without US support. It is made worse as many NATO nations are too small to meaningfully fill specialty units when they can barely provide basic infantry and armor units.
One of the reasons why France keeps pushing for an EU military is so that there is a government entity large enough to fund and pay for these specialty units. Otherwise, France would have to unfairly take on the burden of providing these capabilities itself.
Military satellites are almost entirely US right now, as well. There’s a gap in AWACS and similar as well, but it’s closing.
In theory, it should just be a matter of reorganising for the rest of NATO to do their own military logistics. We have the basic equipment and expertise needed.
There are gaps, but those gaps can be fixed. There’s a reason Saab are getting so many orders for GlobalEye.
The problem is that it doesn’t make sense for one country to bear the cost of developing those specialty items when you don’t have a country like the US who would do it on its own anyway. There is likely going to need to be a pooling of resources to fund the construction of these items. If you’re going to have to pool resources, what entity is going to be the best in receiving these resources and executing contacts to get these capabilities built?
Yes, obviously, having the world’s biggest military power on your side is a really good thing
It is never good. You become dependent on it and countries aliance change all the time
Which is exactly what happened here
It’s because NATO was never just about mutual defense. It’s part of the broader Western Bloc, which absolutely doesn’t make sense without America at the helm. In the first place none of NATO’s member states have had defensive problems that require anything that massive since the collapse of the Soviet Union.
I’d suggest that you try saying this to someone in Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia or Poland, but I don’t actually want you to get punched out.
I suggest you to say this to Libyan. It was a block created by imperialist to fight the ussr imperialism. I do not believe in dissolving Nato but rather making it a readl defense organization independent of the usa and not being ally with israel
I mean, do you really see Russia beating countries with well armed and trained Western style militaries? Because I sure as hell don’t. At worst, an “everyone west of France” alliance would absolutely wipe the floor with Russia if it came down to it. The threat Russia poses to an even somewhat united Eastern and Central Europe is highly exaggerated.
Ukraine was a out what 45mil people vs Russia’s 115ish? so roughly 1:2. But in smaller places like Latvia (1.8mil), Estonia (1.3mil), Lithuania (2.9mil). Would generally be overrun way before any western leadership would wake up from their nap.
Correct. Even with Operation Reassurance, which stations a sizeable contingent of NATO forces in all three states, the NATO assumption is that the Baltics will be largely overrun by any Russian attack before reinforcements can arrive. The strategic goals of the operation are a) to slow any Russian incursion down, and b) to ensure that an attack on any Baltic state would be a direct engagement with a large portion of NATO militaries, thus ensuring that it would constitute an article 5 trigger. As the name suggests, it’s more about reassurance - “We stand with these people and will fight to defend them” - than it is about actually stopping a Russian attack.
NATO assumption is that the Baltics will be largely overrun
That WAS (past tense) the assumption. After the showing in Ukraine, both the ineptitude and the atrocities, you can be certain they’re planning on defending the Baltics from the start.
Yeah. It’s no longer okay to have a plan that says it’s okay if Russia takes some territory, we’ll just take it back a little later. We’ve now seen what happens to the people living in territory that happens to.
And even if small places could survive an invasion attempt by Russia, it would still have an immense cost in lives and destruction. Why not prevent that in the first place?
Sure, but those places would be in some kind of military alliance anyway, the Treaty of Brussels being the most obvious candidate. It’s also important to remember that they’d be overrun anyway; what’s keeping them safe is the threat of retaliation by the rest of NATO, but even at worst Central and Eastern Europe would be more than enough to provide that threat on their own. My point isn’t that a defensive alliance (mostly against Russia) is unnecessary, but that NATO is way, way too big to be only that. Countries like Spain and Britain aren’t part of NATO for mutual defense, because there’s nothing to defend them from.
You really need to look at WW2 history and the reason for NATO. Before WW2 every small country thought they could declare neutrality and sit out the next war: Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, etc. And how did that turn out? Germany just picked them off one by one. Even the countries that tied to engage like Poland and Czechoslovkia were picked off one by one (or served up on a platter).
Read: This disjointed approach did not work at all. The solution? Get a defence alliance that actually came to everyone’s defence. And the earlier the better, countries like Spain and Britain are off fighting the war with functioning allies (yes even the small ones) and with control of the map rather than waiting for Russia to be at their doorstep. Think through WW2, would it have been better or worse for the allies if Norway and Denmark didn’t fall? It would have been a fuckton easier. Half the reason for NATO is to get the small countries in, not run over one by one, and contributing.
none of NATO’s member states have had defensive problems
Why do we need vaccines? Everyone vaccinated never got sick.
I mean, who’s gonna fuck with Spain? France? Britain? Germany? Italy? Canada? Many countries in NATO are safe from foreign aggression for decades to come, NATO or no NATO. If so many of the major members in the defensive alliance don’t need defending, then it’s probably not a defensive alliance.
There have recently been direct annexation threats against Canada.
Not by anybody NATO would get into a fight with.
The point is to make belligerents back down by raising the cost they’d have to pay by carrying through.
This particular belligerent backs down so often that there’s a special acronym for it, so NATO’s a perfectly good protective tool here.
Answered in my other reply, link for others https://lemmy.world/post/49055523/24607737
Rutte is very good at sucking Trump’s dick. He’ll probably resolve this soon enough
He is also good at exposing state members
https://www.politico.eu/article/nato-mark-rutte-italy-us-bases-iran-war/
Rutte’s sole job for the next 2.5 years is to keep the US in NATO.
Or, alternately, preparing NATO for America’s exit. I could easily see a scenario where they’re more trouble than they’re worth.
that started more than a year ago.
Think 40 years from now, what will the be the criteria for success? It’s keeping the US in. Not some organizational shuffling.
40 years is an unreasonably long timeframe to be making projections like this. Assuming the US is still having elections there will have been 10 opportunities for their government to completely flip-flop its intentions in that time.
What? The point is to take a long term view of what is successful and what is not. When you’re sitting there in retirement, what is the measure of success in your career. Success for Rutte (and Nato) is not some organizational shuffling, it’s keeping the US.
Success for Rutte (and NATO) is protecting NATO members against invasion or attack.
If the US’ membership is raising that risk for the other members rather than lowering it, then in that situation letting the US exit can be a net benefit for NATO’s members (which would no longer include the US).
I see that as the 3rd goal. First is US in. Second is Europe miltiary industrial capacity. Third is day to day functioning.
You don’t just want functioning for today. You want a long lasting and strong oganization. I know everyone’s favorite thing right now is US bad (and yes there’s plenty to work on) but no, US membership is not raising risk. No one is going to invade NATO when US industry and technology is on the other side. Again, 40 years now, long term view, big stategic picture, big industrial capacity picture, you want the US in Nato.
Yes but if they don’t it will be 40 years of extra security.
I can’t really see how America been in NATO can be anything other than a good thing. They’re not great allies at the moment but that uncertainty about how America would respond is what’s keeping China from attacking Taiwan.
It’s not worth throwing all that away just so we don’t have to talk to Trump anymore.
Your move, Rutte. Gonna cup the balls while you gargle the knob, this time? Or are you gonna grow a spine and rip the band-aid?
Ripping a bandage off something still in progress is a horrible idea. The rest of NATO doesn’t have the capability to replace the US yet.
Granted. A better analogy, perhaps, would be to realize our bandages are already off, and to focus on dressing our own wound with the other adults in the room. Rather than begging and conceding to Trump’s demands, which we know will never be met with the US keeping their end of the bargain, at this point.
Hey Rutte, reach down the front of YOUR trousers and find a pair of balls.
I really hope Trump collapses this imperialist alliance.
