US to withdraw from NATO under Republican bill
-
This bill is going nowhere, and Trump just said at the summit that he would honor article 5.
I know Trump often changes his mind, but the summit showed that Trump has definitely changed course for the better regarding NATO.Not sure how much I trust Trump, but yeah Mike Lee (who introduced the bill) is someone who just likes introducing bills. The fact no one else joined him means this article and conversation is about all he could expect to actually happen.
-
They wanted to leave during Trump’s first term because it helps Russia’s war with Europe
The increased spending is just meant to make the incumbents unpopular so the Russian backed candidates can win
That's probably a factor as well.
-
Except they have the largest nuclear arsenal and the world biggest navy. They can't be ignored.
Only "solution" I see is civil war. The nukes are still a problem for the rest of the world though
-
Honestly, NATO might be better off without them
Why do you think that? How would losing half the military assets and technology would benefit NATO?
-
that is the less undesirable outcome, but still it is depressing how primitive and fucking dumb humans are to still be bashing each others skulls in in the year 2025.
I don't think the US military complex consider that "less undesirable" than basically any other possible outcome.
... well, it may be better in their minds than an asteroid destroying Earth before they can cash-out. Maybe. I'm not sure about this one...
-
Great!! Fuck right off USA!!! Without you idiotic dipshits in NATO the rest of the aligned countries don’t have to listen to your moronic whining to spend $ on US defense weaponry/planes etc. You won’t be missed and piss off. From Canada’s POV we’re really looking forward to spending billions on Saab Gripens - so we can protect ourselves from you.
hello Russian shill.
-
Russia is losing against Ukraine, the fuck they gonna do against EU, unless they use nukes in which case who cares, it's game over
Russia has an army that is capable of invading another country. The only country in NATO that have done that is the US.
I don't think Russia invading the whole of the EU is a realistic possibility but grabbing a few ex Soviet countries off the border... -
hello Russian shill.
Are you high? The US president is literally a Putin fluffer. But please, go on.
-
Why do you think that? How would losing half the military assets and technology would benefit NATO?
The US is great at spending money in the military, but it absolutely sucks at actual war.
Look how they wasted trillions in Afghanistan to surrender to the Taliban.
the US military exists solely to funnel tax payer money to military shareholders.
-
My brother-in-law is career Navy and he says they'd get mopped by the Chinese.
sounds like E1 speak to me. I'm sure your BIL is a lovely cadet, but he should learn when to turn-to and stfu.
-
The US is great at spending money in the military, but it absolutely sucks at actual war.
Look how they wasted trillions in Afghanistan to surrender to the Taliban.
the US military exists solely to funnel tax payer money to military shareholders.
I'll grant you it's a big racket, it's corrupt, it's inefficient, but I don't think it's a skill issue.
I wouldn't consider failing to win the hearts and minds of the local populace using violence a military failure rather than a policy failure.
-
Are you high? The US president is literally a Putin fluffer. But please, go on.
yes!
and...?
-
NATOs other purpose is to stop socialism/communism from existing and emerging anywhere, unjustifiably. The Soviet Union wasn’t going to take over Europe, that was a lie created by the US and others. The US was the aggressor during the Cold war working overtime to sabotage any socialist nation because of “freedoms” and “democracy.”
Russia has been a capitalist country since the fall of the USSR (goal accomplished I guess) but the West has still wanted to destroy them even before the Ukraine conflict. Yes what Russia is doing is wrong and they need to be stopped, but also the US, EU, and NATO.
As someone from a country take over by the Soviet union... Lol.
-
I'll grant you it's a big racket, it's corrupt, it's inefficient, but I don't think it's a skill issue.
I wouldn't consider failing to win the hearts and minds of the local populace using violence a military failure rather than a policy failure.
Ukraine showed that modern warfare is a different game than it used to.
it's s resource war, cheap drones can cause lots of damage, and it is far more costly to fight them. long range rockets, v defense systems...
and given that US have painfully expensive toys, they won't be able to hold of again a cheap enemy.
yhea, Maybe the F22 can outmanoeuvre another airplane in a dogfight, but who tf needs a dogfight? the enemy can just launch a volley of self guided missiles that costs 100x to intercept.
-
sounds like E1 speak to me. I'm sure your BIL is a lovely cadet, but he should learn when to turn-to and stfu.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]He's an officer and over 20 years now. This discussion took place shortly after he gave me a tour of the bridge of the carrier he was assigned to at the time. The terminals were running Windows XP. This was 7-8 years ago tops.
-
Russia has an army that is capable of invading another country. The only country in NATO that have done that is the US.
I don't think Russia invading the whole of the EU is a realistic possibility but grabbing a few ex Soviet countries off the border...wrote on last edited by [email protected]asdf
-
I keep getting this sinking feeling that this is all leading up to a precise and coordinated attack of evil.
Russia bombards the EU, the US attacks Greenland and Canada, while Israel finally bulldozes Gaza and Iran. China takes Taiwan and the south sea.
All at the same time so NATO is overwhelmed and can’t decisively defend it all without risking spreading too thin. No matter what happens, one of the bad guys gains ground.
I honestly have no idea if this is even possible, it’s based on a dream I had a few weeks ago.
Disturbing thought though.
The thing is the EU is mostly concerned about Europe, while the US wants to play world police. So if China would invade Taiwan and NATO is without the US, I'm not sure they are going to get involved, it would open the gate for Russia. If the US is still part of NATO I'm not sure what will happen as it's not an article 5 event. So the other NATO countries are not automatically involved even if the US is.
-
It was a talking point that Trump had in his first term. He tends not to let go of bad ideas once they get into his head.
At the time, people didn't take it seriously. With the Ukraine War, Europe feels like it has to now. But it's going to be domestic production, not paying US MIC companies like Trump was thinking.
The 5% is probably too much, but its realistically 3.5% the othet 1.5% can be spend on infrastructure (like make bridges strong enough so tanks can drive over them), on cyber defense and other things that are not weapons.
Also it's about deterrence, when we spend enough Russia can't attack unless they match the spending, this is part why the Soviet Union collapsed.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Does the bill include all military installation closures and those that are on European territories? For example Greenland. If MAGA wants out, then GTFO and I do not want hear any crying afterwards because that will give the Europeans every excuse not purchase US made weapons. I'm certain US MIC lobbyists will weasel their way in to tear apart the bill.
-
I don't think the US military complex consider that "less undesirable" than basically any other possible outcome.
... well, it may be better in their minds than an asteroid destroying Earth before they can cash-out. Maybe. I'm not sure about this one...
I don’t think the US military complex consider that “less undesirable” than basically any other possible outcome.
Either I disagree about the preferences of those murder-weapons-vendors, or you misunderstood my intentional double-negative, whose purpose it was to emphasize that it is absolutely not desirable that budgets have to be increased for mass-murder weapons.
I am saying the military industrial complex over in the divided states of fuck all and everyone, would absolutely prefer if people bought from them, less so as a cash-out but preferably as a permanent source of income. A privatized murder-weapons industry in the billions is the best way of ensuring we will never get lasting peace on this planet.
