The US is weakened without NATO. This is a simple observation. How much? That doesn't matter because it is weakened to some degree. That is not in the best interests of the US. Any sane US politician would not antagonise Europe by floating the idea of cutting ties with NATO. The European NATO countries have the assets, research, design and production facilities to produce any hardware or system that is lost by the US departure. It would take time but it would be done. And then what? The US battles in the Pacific alone? Why should Europe care ? We could just let America and China bankrupt themselves while we take care of Russia. Trump may get what he wishes and the US may wish that he didn't.
Because Trump is in Putin's pocket, he might not realize it. Maybe he does. I don't know. But it sure seems like everything he's doing is in the best interest of Putin
I love how you pose the optimistic glee overview of a united europe. History shows that to be mostly a farce. You europeans have been wiping each other out for hundreds of years before the USA created NATO. Make no mistake, Leaving NATO harms europe more than it harms America. You seriously think a bunch of european countries developing nuclear programs in close proximity next to each other and russia is a great idea? 😂😂 We’ll see much that works out 😂😂
NATO without the US would be the EU. Europe has diminished its military industrial infrastructure for decades. Yes, Europe has great systems & designs. But level of production is extremely small. European navies, combined, is vastly weaker & smaller than the US Atlantic Fleet. US Army has more tanks in its active units that the top 4 EU-NATO members combined. NATO would lose all its long-range strategic bomber force. It would lose a majority of its airborne radar & refueling aircraft. Europe would actually need to spend money on its military. Currently, Europe doesn’t have the capability to launch anything into space. If a war in the Asia/Pacific happens then yes the US would literally fight without European help. What assets do EU-NATO members have in that region to any significant numbers? Japan & South Korea are NATO members. Those two nations are the primary allies to the US in that region. Philippines as a key strategic & tactic geographical ally. Canada? They barely have a navy to speak of. Australia? Its navy is vastly inferior to South Korea & Japan. British Royal Navy sailing to the Pacific? Better hope their carriers don’t breakdown before leaving the North Sea. Germany? Kriegsmarine is a supplementary navy. France? They’d never deploy the de Gaulle in such a hostile environment.
Being from Europe, I would say that Ouer's combined military capabilities are more than enough to deal with Russia. But Europe is not one country and that is the weakness, and who knows If Europe will be able to work together if shit hits the fan.
It's the lack of a competitive nuclear arsenal that would doom you if Russia decides to go that route. Only France and the UK even have them, and they don't have very many. The UK's are provided by the US, and even though they work fine when test-fired from US subs, they've had three successive failures when fired from the RN subs. Something to do with the missile tubes or launching systems most likely. If that weren't bad enough, within 15 years the Tritium in the warheads will have decayed significantly that Russia may be willing to take their chances. Normally the subs would just travel to the Kings Bay submarine base in Georgia to swap them out for refurbishment, but again that would require the US for assistance. France has their own weapons, but they only have four submarines total, of which at least one is always undergoing upkeep and thus unavailable for deterrence. Not sure that would deter Putin if he were angry enough.
You deserve much more attention Wes, I was honestly shocked to see only 35k subscribers. NATO will still be an adequate force to deal with any regional threats without the US. I can only see the weakening of the US military if there is a withdrawal from the alliance.
@WesODonnellX: For once I really think you got some things wrong here. Like in very wrong. You are right that both Europe and the US would be weaker if the US pulls out of NATO. But without the US, NATO would not need: - Massive sea and airlift capability - A large blue water navy - Massive global power projection - Large nuclear arsenal My point is that NATO upholds a lot of capacities because of the alliance being positioned across the Atlantic and because of all the global-policeman-stuff the US brings in. To (almost all) Europeans, NATO is purely the defense pact the treaty states. And BTW the things I mention together with veteran services cost, makes out a very large chunk of the US defense budget, and without it the US would not meet the 2% commitment :)) Also the US keeps roughly 60K troops in Europe, so its not exactly here the US is spending its time and money. And I guess that most of these troops together with the Sixth Fleet is not normally here because of Europe, but because of the Middle East. I would very much like the US to stay in NATO, but if not it would certainly not be catastrophic to Europe. It would require us to get our act together but maybe that could be easier if big brother leaves. We already far outspend any of the adversaries in our neighborhood incl Russia. And a US exit would mean a colossal boost for the European defense industry that suffers so much today from many nations today placing orders in the US to "confirm" the close partnership and because the US is our "closest" ally. Trump pulling the US out of NATO would change all this on the spot.
We are not their enemy and will have a percentage of reason to fight . They would never want the strongest military to leave . If our base gets hit , it draws us into their conflict . Think it through before posting .
Regarding Trump's comments about pulling the US out of NATO, he should rather work on extending NATO to the Asia-Pacific: Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore (its position is very important), Australia, etc... In response to North Korea's intervention in Ukraine and China's support for Russia.
Those countries aren't even remotely close to the northern Atlantic... ya know, the first 2 letters in NATO? Edit: It would make more sense to make a new Alliance for that side of the world. PTO (Pacific Treaty Organization)
US exit from NATO would have far reaching issues all over the globe, where NATO does not reach. US exit would tell all and every "ally" of the US, that the US is only an ally as long as they get what they want. Europe does not need 30 E-3's the US does. The European theatre is much smaller and not as strategic. On top of that you have countries like Sweden and Finland who have lived for up to centuries on their own, with military structure that can can work well without the US, and have subs that can easily sink a carrier. The US would loose more on leaving than they would ever think they could gain.
So you say as if EU members aren't infighting and freaking out over Russia's encroachment towards the west. Anyway, the world is no longer our problem as we once again focus on becoming self-reliant.
So the US should stay with an ally that doesn’t really want to commit to its own security? What does that say about the US? It says the US is a pushover. That doesn’t help.
@@chillxxx241 it says that the US has been the only one ever asking for help and failed on helping back when needed. Besides that, Trump is a liar. The EU has invested more into defence than Trump hints at. For example the protection of military bases in the EU is financed from the interior department while the US pays it from the military department. Creative book keeping.
@ Don’t be ignorant. Obama and previous US Presidents have complained about this too. They just didn’t do it on social media. European leaders have even admitted they need to do more. I remember European soldiers showing up for exercises without boots, food, radios, etc… The US forces would have to scramble to find equipment for them to even participate.
I often ask the inversion of this question. Would the US survive without NATO. Certainly our US defense material sales would slump, Europe would clump into at least 3 blocks, some would align with Russia or BRICS, some would stick with US, our enemy base would likely increase, our logistics and force structure in Europe would shrink and be fragmented at best, we may also lose a portion of our trade alliance with the EU, our currency reserve status would likely shrink, the US isn't the warhorse and Economic powerhouse she was in the world from 1945 through year 2000. We import a vast majority of everything in the retail sector, even food now, which is something new. This USA is headed towards major restructuring if not disintegration from global affairs. We have abused our reserve currency status in many ways and unfortunately we gave away our industry to China. All of of naval, air power, new ICBMs are all backlogged and riddled with cost overruns. We buy our Uranium from Russia. Pathetic. Our enemies know this and a split with NATO would be happy times for our Eurasian adversaries.
My father always told me: there is only one important piece of wisdom for a husband. The wife is always right and you have your peace.😂 You’re doing a great job. Carry on! Greetings from Germany. Slava Ukraine! 🇩🇪🤝🇺🇦🤝🇮🇱🤝🇺🇸
NATO only had 1 opponent, Russia. Global reach is not a priority. So if the US pulls out an already battered Russia is all they have to deal with. It will take Russia 10 years to rebuild from a weak position. Europe over the same 10 years of investment would outpace Russia and start off with a technological advantage. The US, on the other hand, without Europe, loses European bases, which have served as a secure weigh station for Middle East operations.
It's not a question of who needs whom, it's that NATO is stronger with the USA as a member, and the USA is stronger with support from NATO nations. The relationship is a two way street. 20 years ago, the USA could dominate the globe, but China's resurgence has changed that. Now, the USA wants NATO countries to help deal with the rise of China because it recognizes it cannot do it all by itself. Without NATO, the Italians don't sail their carrier group into the Pacific like they did this year. The Germans don't send frigates on FONOPS with the USN in the Taiwan Strait, etc. If the US leaves NATO, Europe will get closer to China, which would be disastrous for the US geopolitically.
Greetings from Spain. One must be careful when judging/evaluating the war in Ukraine, since the Ukrainians had a large amount of EX-USSR material that, if used correctly, allowed them to survive and recover part of their territory. Little by little, Ukraine is switching to NATO material, but we cannot forget the massive presence of EX-USSR material on the Ukrainian side.
Just looking at Wikipedia, doesn't NATO have something like 34 AWACS type aircraft of a few types, once you count the 14 'shared' NATO aircraft as well?
Belgian here. With Trump in power, we may have no choice but to go without the US. My country has more diplomats spread all over the globe than it has soldiers in the field, but we are host to NATO headquarters, and to EU headquarters, in Brussels. I can assure you we really don’t need any massive walking security risks frequenting our corps diplomatique. And since we can’t trust Trump’s intelligence picks, and since we can’t trust Trump himself, we can’t by extension trust any US military presence over here, either. Go. Just go.
Belgium in 2024 contributes only 1.1% of its GDP to defence which shows how serious they are. Considering that there has been a full scale war in Europe for almost three years, preceded by an armed insurgency in Donbas for ten years then its hardly surprising that Trump and many others feel that some countries are freeloading. You know what its like being occupied yet you still do far too little.
@@klausberfelde-je2ye According to Trump, everything is simple. The American people have chosen themselves a president who demands of reality that it be simple, … or else. What were the American people thinking?
You've pretty much answered your own question. If the US leaves NATO those who remain will circle the wagons and buy everything they can from the remaining members. It would cost the American defense industry several tens of billions of dollars per year, if not more.
exactly! why should europe buy yank stuff if it comes with strings attached like it has done to ukraine? trump would have already heard from the defence equipment manufacturers.
Studies have shown that they'll need at least 18 years of military procurement contracts, just to replace the stuff we've already sent Ukraine. Our military-industrial complex isn't going anywhere.
IMO the US leaving NATO would obviously be severely detrimental to NATOs overall capability’s especially as NATO adapts and changes resource distribution. Fortunately even a weakened NATO is comfortably strong enough to to withstand and posible threats current global political state realistically poses. In the longer run I actually think this would weaken the US capability’s and positioning against potential adversaries more significantly. Not to mention the fact that this would broadly encourage European country’s to become less reliant on Americas industrial complex.
@@jimfrazier8104 You are obviously completely unqualified to talk about matters of national security. Isolationism would lead to the end of the US. But you've got the government you wanted, and now you're going to learn what the price of that "attitude" is.
@@USS-SNAKE-ISLAND I didn't vote for Trump, I'm just pointing out the elephant in the room. As far as being qualified to to talk about national security, I'm a US military veteran, so I actually understand what it means to defend my country. Do you?
Funny thing, the first AI killer drone is the German X-Wing. The current operating system to link strategic air defence was written in Germany. The IRIS-T-AA from Germany is currently planned to replace US Air-to-Air-Missiles. The German Patriot PAC-Missiles (Patriot was like a ton of other projects co-developed between the US and Germany) are cheaper, have a longer range and are more resistant to jamming, the same goes for the German build GMLRS which only cost half as much as the US versions. The Taurus is said to be the most unstoppable Cruise Missile, Stealthy and able to whack through 15m of hardened concrete. The French-German satellite surveillance system has less satellites than the US but those they have are so good that the US constantly requests recon data from them. For example it can detect underground tunnels at absurd depths and subtle changes of the landscape.
@@jimfrazier8104 In WW2 Russia got Land Lease and endless supply from the USA and had the Ukrainians fighting the Germans. In 2024 Ukraine got Land Lease and endless supply from Germany and the USA.
@@CrassSpektakel "Endless supply" is not even close to reality, since it had to be convoyed on slow, vulnerable freighters that were easy prey for German U-boats. The point I was making is that Russia didn't drive the Germans back with better weapons, they did it with bodies. Germany still has great engineers building excellent weapons, but the don't have many weapons and even fewer troops. Just like with Japan, the rest of the world effectively neutered their cultures militarily after WW2.
@@jimfrazier8104 Two mistakes: 1. There were no German Ships around the two main routes (Persia, Pacific). Only the British Supply lines were under German Pressure. 2. The number of vehicles delivered to Russia outnumbered the Russian production by a factor of three. The problem weren't the Russian man power - human waves back then were even less reliable than today with almost 20:1 losses. You see, cutting down 300 attacking Russian soldiers with no training or equipment did only require two MG34 teams and a truck load of ammunition. Stopping 50 M4 tanks, that was different. My grandpa had to recover the dead and bury them after battle and he said he has never seen anything below 50:1 when picking up the pieces. Later in Italy the US troops didn't fare much better, at Monte Casino he often dug graves with 10:1 US fatalities. I might add that he usually only cleaned up after German success so he hasn't seen the other numbers. But I doubt the other side saw similiar numbers in their favor. Also: Back in the 1940ths the Soviet Union had three times more citizens and much higher birth rates and Germany was fighting everyone, while today Russia is fighting everyone.
@@CrassSpektakel My grandpa was at Pearl Harbor and Guadalcanal. I get what you're saying about US war material helping the Russians resist the Wehrmacht onslaught, but what I'm trying to say is that the Russians drove them back with more bodies and weapons, even though the Germans were objectively better troops with better equipment. As Stalin famously quipped, "quantity has a quality all its own". Where this applies now is that while Europe can make some great weapon systems and train their armies to a high degree, they are small armies with relatively minor quantities of those advanced weapons. Most importantly, without the massive US nuclear arsenal, they are effectively powerless against Russia if Putin goes that route. France has their own missiles and warheads, but they have a tiny fleet that Russia could conceivably sink pre-emptively, and the UK is entirely dependent on US missiles. The UK boats have had three consecutive test-launch failures, because while the missiles are American, the launch systems are their own. I've personally experienced half-a-dozen test launches on USN Ohio-class boats, and all of ours came down on target. The other ugly reality is that the tritium in the warhead decays, so they have to be recharged every fifteen years or so, and the UK has no means to do that. France could potentially help with that, but they may not have the tritium production to service both countries at this point.
a) she's right b) don't argue with your wife when she's right c) ignore anything the internet tells you is right if it disagrees with your wife NATO's Europeans don't really need airlift they don't have anything but land between them and their regional threat, but it would be a much weaker alliance without the US, but it's not really up to us
The reason i have left the Indian Ocean out of the APTO Atlantic Pacific Treaty Organisation is that traditionaly countries that surround the Indian Ocean generally sit on the fence.Australia is the only continent that lies in the Indian and Pacific ,but treaties with Atlantic and Pacific countries as well.
Thanks for the video, excellent as usual. When it comes to pronunciation Dassault is pronounced Dass-oh, and Thales us pronounced Tah-less. Hope this helps 😉
Well, the US went down from about 60 to basically only 3 weapon producers. They also need parts from european ones - like canons from Rheinmetall and other partners, for different systems. Imagine, what would happen, if they decide to betray the countries, that helped in the only Article 5 case ever, invoked by the US - not to mention the intelligence sharing, which is in danger for another 4 years, anyways. Also, those countries have contacts, for maintenance, training and support of the systems they bought from those companies. Furthermore, the first layer for the nuclear defence is actually in NATO bases at Poland and Romania. Without them, the US would need to intercept every single MIRV, instead of shootiing down the missles before deploying the warheads. Germany for example, ordered 10 THAADs and 35 F-35 alone, imagine how many units are currently in service in other european countries. What Trump would start with a withdraw from NATO, is the push into domestic european systems, independent from the clown show, happening every 4 years in the US. Other countries have satellites and defense systems as well and there is a lot about to come, in the next 5 years - including counter missiles against hypersonics. Who would help with China or Taiwan, then - the Brits? Maybe, but they will be busy as well, depending on Trump´s attitude. I would give a shyt, if the US leaves NATO, tbh - and in fact, there was a NATO meeting without the US one year ago, already - just in case Trump gets elected. The Europeans are prepared for that scenario and one thing US citizens use to forget is: Europe got more active soldiers than the US - not to mention the reservists. Russia got 140mil people, Europe would roll them over with 700mil. That´s a fact, Russians and US citizens never get straight. As soon as the political will is there and Europe goes into war economy - oh, boy... 🤣
It's possible that AUKUS and the old ANZUS could be on shaky ground as well. APTO Atlantic,Pacific Treaty Organisation could be the merger of NATO and Asia,Oceania into one Organisation.USA would not want to be out of that one.
The aspect of NATO being utterly dependent on the SIGINT system highlights the role Australia plays in paying for NATOs defence. The European in their strategic brilliance have rewarded Australia’s support with a punitive trade embargo inflicted for generations.😂
I wish America would help its oen citizens as much as they wana help other countries in nato.nato is good to have and all that as long and we help our selves as much as we help others.
I believe NATO needs the USA, but I also believe the USA needs NATO. When the USA needs assistance in other countries, like war in Iraq, it relies on its allies like NATO. I do believe that NATO countries need to increase spending drastically, and this gas to be enforced. But America with 90% less support from its previous NATO allies (if it leaves), is probably 50% or more, less effective. America needs to keep it's friends close over these war times, and NATO needs to pull its finger out it's a55.
I'd say NATO would survive as it is so important to Europe, but without the US it would need major reform and that's something Europe seriously doesn't want. So to Europe, the idea of NATO without US is a threat that could make Europe quadruple defense spending no problem. The problem is, this is a gamble to them. With that much money at stake, is Trump serious about withdrawing from NATO or is it just an empty threat? I'll say this is not worth betting at, Europe needs to be at US levels if not more due to the threat from Russia, but then again I disagree with our politicians on a lot of things.
I don't feed Russian bots, my comment to that is just even if it happens doesn't mean American or Europe lost each other but more Bürokratie between both 😂😂😂, we still have the same meaning for freedom and democracy and a free market for everyone 😂😂😂 and I cannot help you with your Lady, I'm Portuguese living in Germany thanks new technology I can my old school English use so that not every one have problems and it takes long to formulate something understandable Slava Ukraine 🇺🇦🇵🇹
If the US leaves NATO the result would be the most powerful military force in Europe goes home. That means the largest Air Force goes away. The largest navy sails back to home ports. Majority of NATO’s air defense systems are packed up and shipped home. NATO nations would actually have to spend money on the militaries. Defense companies like BAE Systems, Kongsberg, Rheinmetall, Saab Bofors, Thales Group, etc will lose billions of dollars. Funny thing about this part. Even though many European companies supply the US will various weapon systems. Every system from these companies must be made in the US. So, the US government still would have access to all the assembly, manufacturing & equipment from the companies. Thru a Presidential act.. nationalization of those assets wouldn’t hamper the supply of weapons to the US. Just those companies wouldn’t be able to charge the US.
I guess related to the new Strategy NATO Members would be forced to spend at least 2.5 - 3% of their GDP to fulfill their duty... so from my point of view, it would make more sense to ask this question in future may be in 10 or 15 years.
Hi Wes, sorry mate, your wife is correct. Also, what are your thoughts on the proposed, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard? Seems the rest of the Five Eyes are not to keen. 🇦🇺
Hi Wes, as always good comments by you; and I agree. However taking a different angle on this; the NATO alliance is also exactly that, an alliance (and not something like a government). So I would wonder just how much influence the US is having on preventing NATO members from getting involved more deeply than they would like to as Nation States because of that alliance and the role of the USA in directing it. Anders today has released a god (as always) analysis of the misunderstanding held in the west by what "victory" means for Russia and what their goals actually are. The few (but not stupid) Americans I know have less than no idea what the conflict is about (meaning much of what they "know" is actually wrong) and perhaps it is that the US (in this case) has made the earlier engagement of the European NATO partners more "hesitant" because of the US position of using arms. Of course we (me and perhaps you) will never know to what extent this is, but its something I often ponder (as one who has a great fondness for Finland) Best Wishes
Speaking of pronounciation, the Dassault Rafale lacks that extra "e" that you added. It's not "Raphael", like one of the Ninja Turtles. _ra-fal,_ not _ra-fa-el._
from Canada, no, the metaphors gotta go........do you really think or believe, trump, knows how much military hardware, is at his beck and call? do you really think or believe, trump, would send anything to harm putin, his friend? Wes, you gave a really good synopsis of what is available but thinking it would even be considered............
The world's only hope is that Trump doesn't implement all the things he said he would, especially because he wants to leave NATO. Our only hope is that he's not competent enough to accomplish his goals.
the rest of NATO dont need US overseas bases, Canada is automatically protected by neighboring the US, no matter any allaince, the rest of the EU NATO still has French nukes and enough of a combined airforce, economy and industry to hold our continent against any of the Kremlin orcs Ukraine hasn't delt with...
Yes, it was necessary back then, but times have changed. Maybe Trump was exactly what European NATO members needed. It's time to take our defense into our own hands, along with the expansion of our defense industry (Ukraine has well shown our deficits). It's our fault that we are basing the defense of our homes and families on the election results of a country whose civilian population probably wouldn't even be affected in the event of a war. Don't get me wrong, Europe has a lot to thank the USA for, but we finally have to stand on our own two feet, with or without NATO or the USA
One of Europe's biggest issues is and remains the eternal "herding cats" syndrome. Sure, things might look half decent on paper, it's in the implementation where things fall apart.
You are so cute when you start posting photos of you and your wife. But NATO certainly does not need the US to face down a second rate power like Russia, especially after it has gone toe to toe with Ukraine for three years. Yes, it is just that simple.
Europe’s also fallen behind in GDP. Until ~2008 it was bigger than the US but has steadily fallen behind and is now only 80% or so. It’s a bit better by PPP, but replicating US scale gets harder and harder the smaller Europe gets in relative terms.
US GDP might be bigger, but the US national debt is also much bigger, and still growing. The US only keeps functioning as long as the politicians allow the debt to increase.
USA is an importent member , but they are not NATO . The rest of the members are not puni little third world countries , so dont make USA sound like its the entire NATO. NATO will go on existing and without chaos , sure USA is a big country and a big military . But as we have seen in Ukraine , big and bad is not always the best , brain and equipment go a long way .
the name of a weapons platform is from the military, not how a poorly informed news outlet popularizes a misnomer or incorrect phrase. I like the proper name. even if I am a computer nerd, not a weapons nerd. :)
Honestly... US will never leave Nato, and I don't believe that is what Trump wants either. He is a businessman and this threat tp "leave" Naro is only his way to reinforce his message that all member states as far as possible have to carry their own weight and then some. I have never really understood why the US accepts to pay for defending half the world. Germany, Taiwan, Korea, and the list goes on... Ofcourse I understand what's in it for the US and their military industrial complex which is so closgly tied to the governing power. But still: it has always seemed a bit unfair to me. This is what Trump wants to change. And he always goes to the extreme when he opens the bidding. To make sure the other party understands that he does mean business. I think his strategy is very good. For the US and for the european safety. A lot of countries put too little into their defense budget. And now they have to take a bigger responsibility for their own security. My country, Sweden, is upping its defense game. We had cut back too much on defense spending over the decades after the fall of the Soviet union. Although admittedly, the defense we had left certainly was top of the line, but it was too small to face the threat of the new Russia. We are lucky to have a big advanced defense industry and it's easier for us than for others to step up though. I think all nations should spend at least 5 percent on defense for years to come. Russia must be stopped before their appetite for expansion grows stronger still.
correction: trump is not a good businessman. he couldnt run a casino profitably in spite of him saving money by ripping off anyone he subcontracted to build the place.
In terms of US spending as it pertains to NATO specifically, the US does not spend significantly more in terms of per capita gdp. The war in Ukraine is a recent anomaly in that respect, but even there, US direct support for Ukraine is too often exaggerated. Much of the 'Ukraine' spending goes back into the US economy. Additionally, the quoted figures relating to funding the US millitary include a bunch of stuff that European countries do not include in their military budgets. That said, Trump would be a fool to break up any of the defence agreements. We're stronger together.
Eeee - no, the US isn't leading in development of nearly anything. Not even in airdefence, cruise missiles, ammo - small arms and artillery. Tanks and infantery combat viecles is absolutly on par and above US counterpart. Sweedish and german made subs is way better suited for european needs than US boomers + surface navy is also top notch. Nucelar we are also more than suficiant to deter Russia. US is far better in beeing an empire militare, wich is of no interest to Europe - + we are way more people than the US! - Even the Whitehose is protected by Norwegian air defence!
It's based on _participation,_ not on hand-outs! NATO is supposed to be based on, well uhmm, on the _Bring Your Own Booze_ idea. The idea is that each member spends 2% of its yearly budget on defense. It's meant to be a Dutch Treat party. Trump is mad that not everyone is bringing enough for their own. But NATO isn't in any way in debt to the US. There is no bar tab still open. That's not how this works.
We can still be allies but not forced to defend people who have decided over decades that their own safety and survival isn't worth investing in. We should leave and sign a deal that they will have to lose an entire country and have at least a million soldier deaths before the we save them. It's absurd to fight for people who willingly refuse to invest in their own security. Their survival is in their hands. Just like Ukraines faitnwill come down to how weak Europe is. Plenty of money and resources to have the biggest and best military apparatus in the world but they chose to force US to save them via NATO laws. They also vilify Jews for defending themselves against muSSlims. They mass import Musslims stupidly thinking that will improve their countries. Turkey is funding terrorist groups and will soon support direct genocide attempts against Israel if the rest of NATO doesn't stop them. They also chose to ally with Russia militarily over NATO. NATO is good on paper but what Europe has shown is that they are weak and pathetic and not worth our backing unless they prove they are willing to stand up for the values they claim to have and support Ukraine to complete victory.
SLAVA UKRAINE 🇺🇦 🙏🏽 🪖 !! SLAVA TO THE UNCONQUERABLE UKRAINIAN PEOPLE 🇺🇦 !! SLAVA TO THE MAGNIFICENT LEADERSHIP OF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND SLAVA TO THE UNSTOPPABLE , FEARLESS AND PATRIOTIC WARRIORS OF THE UKRAINIAN 🇺🇦 NATION 🪖 !! MAY ALMIGHTY GOD 🛐 CONTINUE TO BLESS YOU AND KEEP YOU STRONG AND FREE !! SEMPER 🪖 FIDELIS 🇺🇸🇵🇷🦅🌎⚓
The US is weakened without NATO. This is a simple observation. How much? That doesn't matter because it is weakened to some degree. That is not in the best interests of the US. Any sane US politician would not antagonise Europe by floating the idea of cutting ties with NATO.
The European NATO countries have the assets, research, design and production facilities to produce any hardware or system that is lost by the US departure. It would take time but it would be done. And then what? The US battles in the Pacific alone? Why should Europe care ? We could just let America and China bankrupt themselves while we take care of Russia. Trump may get what he wishes and the US may wish that he didn't.
Because Trump is in Putin's pocket, he might not realize it. Maybe he does. I don't know. But it sure seems like everything he's doing is in the best interest of Putin
I think you are spot on. We are stronger together.
I love how you pose the optimistic glee overview of a united europe. History shows that to be mostly a farce. You europeans have been wiping each other out for hundreds of years before the USA created NATO. Make no mistake, Leaving NATO harms europe more than it harms America. You seriously think a bunch of european countries developing nuclear programs in close proximity next to each other and russia is a great idea? 😂😂 We’ll see much that works out 😂😂
@@sortaspicey9278 Putin got Brexit done. He’s getting USexit done, as we speak.
NATO without the US would be the EU. Europe has diminished its military industrial infrastructure for decades. Yes, Europe has great systems & designs. But level of production is extremely small. European navies, combined, is vastly weaker & smaller than the US Atlantic Fleet. US Army has more tanks in its active units that the top 4 EU-NATO members combined.
NATO would lose all its long-range strategic bomber force. It would lose a majority of its airborne radar & refueling aircraft. Europe would actually need to spend money on its military. Currently, Europe doesn’t have the capability to launch anything into space.
If a war in the Asia/Pacific happens then yes the US would literally fight without European help. What assets do EU-NATO members have in that region to any significant numbers? Japan & South Korea are NATO members. Those two nations are the primary allies to the US in that region. Philippines as a key strategic & tactic geographical ally. Canada? They barely have a navy to speak of. Australia? Its navy is vastly inferior to South Korea & Japan. British Royal Navy sailing to the Pacific? Better hope their carriers don’t breakdown before leaving the North Sea. Germany? Kriegsmarine is a supplementary navy. France? They’d never deploy the de Gaulle in such a hostile environment.
Being from Europe, I would say that Ouer's combined military capabilities are more than enough to deal with Russia. But Europe is not one country and that is the weakness, and who knows If Europe will be able to work together if shit hits the fan.
It's the lack of a competitive nuclear arsenal that would doom you if Russia decides to go that route. Only France and the UK even have them, and they don't have very many. The UK's are provided by the US, and even though they work fine when test-fired from US subs, they've had three successive failures when fired from the RN subs. Something to do with the missile tubes or launching systems most likely. If that weren't bad enough, within 15 years the Tritium in the warheads will have decayed significantly that Russia may be willing to take their chances. Normally the subs would just travel to the Kings Bay submarine base in Georgia to swap them out for refurbishment, but again that would require the US for assistance. France has their own weapons, but they only have four submarines total, of which at least one is always undergoing upkeep and thus unavailable for deterrence. Not sure that would deter Putin if he were angry enough.
A team is more effective than an individual.
You deserve much more attention Wes, I was honestly shocked to see only 35k subscribers.
NATO will still be an adequate force to deal with any regional threats without the US. I can only see the weakening of the US military if there is a withdrawal from the alliance.
United we stand divided we fall
@WesODonnellX: For once I really think you got some things wrong here. Like in very wrong. You are right that both Europe and the US would be weaker if the US pulls out of NATO.
But without the US, NATO would not need:
- Massive sea and airlift capability
- A large blue water navy
- Massive global power projection
- Large nuclear arsenal
My point is that NATO upholds a lot of capacities because of the alliance being positioned across the Atlantic and because of all the global-policeman-stuff the US brings in.
To (almost all) Europeans, NATO is purely the defense pact the treaty states.
And BTW the things I mention together with veteran services cost, makes out a very large chunk of the US defense budget, and without it the US would not meet the 2% commitment :))
Also the US keeps roughly 60K troops in Europe, so its not exactly here the US is spending its time and money. And I guess that most of these troops together with the Sixth Fleet is not normally here because of Europe, but because of the Middle East.
I would very much like the US to stay in NATO, but if not it would certainly not be catastrophic to Europe. It would require us to get our act together but maybe that could be easier if big brother leaves. We already far outspend any of the adversaries in our neighborhood incl Russia. And a US exit would mean a colossal boost for the European defense industry that suffers so much today from many nations today placing orders in the US to "confirm" the close partnership and because the US is our "closest" ally. Trump pulling the US out of NATO would change all this on the spot.
If NATO uninvites US? What happen if US is no longer welcomed to keep bases in Europe?
We are not their enemy and will have a percentage of reason to fight . They would never want the strongest military to leave . If our base gets hit , it draws us into their conflict . Think it through before posting .
That is not the issue. You ought not to float a red herring like that.
@@KC-nd7ntIf US leaves NATO , US will have to give up the european bases for sure. Why should we host non alliance troops?
Works for the USA to see Europe fail
@@gil9898 thank you.
what's not the issue?
& what is a floating red herring?
Regarding Trump's comments about pulling the US out of NATO, he should rather work on extending NATO to the Asia-Pacific: Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore (its position is very important), Australia, etc... In response to North Korea's intervention in Ukraine and China's support for Russia.
Those countries aren't even remotely close to the northern Atlantic... ya know, the first 2 letters in NATO?
Edit: It would make more sense to make a new Alliance for that side of the world. PTO (Pacific Treaty Organization)
US exit from NATO would have far reaching issues all over the globe, where NATO does not reach. US exit would tell all and every "ally" of the US, that the US is only an ally as long as they get what they want. Europe does not need 30 E-3's the US does. The European theatre is much smaller and not as strategic. On top of that you have countries like Sweden and Finland who have lived for up to centuries on their own, with military structure that can can work well without the US, and have subs that can easily sink a carrier.
The US would loose more on leaving than they would ever think they could gain.
So you say as if EU members aren't infighting and freaking out over Russia's encroachment towards the west.
Anyway, the world is no longer our problem as we once again focus on becoming self-reliant.
So the US should stay with an ally that doesn’t really want to commit to its own security? What does that say about the US? It says the US is a pushover. That doesn’t help.
@@chillxxx241 it says that the US has been the only one ever asking for help and failed on helping back when needed.
Besides that, Trump is a liar. The EU has invested more into defence than Trump hints at. For example the protection of military bases in the EU is financed from the interior department while the US pays it from the military department. Creative book keeping.
@ Don’t be ignorant. Obama and previous US Presidents have complained about this too. They just didn’t do it on social media. European leaders have even admitted they need to do more. I remember European soldiers showing up for exercises without boots, food, radios, etc… The US forces would have to scramble to find equipment for them to even participate.
I often ask the inversion of this question. Would the US survive without NATO. Certainly our US defense material sales would slump, Europe would clump into at least 3 blocks, some would align with Russia or BRICS, some would stick with US, our enemy base would likely increase, our logistics and force structure in Europe would shrink and be fragmented at best, we may also lose a portion of our trade alliance with the EU, our currency reserve status would likely shrink, the US isn't the warhorse and Economic powerhouse she was in the world from 1945 through year 2000. We import a vast majority of everything in the retail sector, even food now, which is something new. This USA is headed towards major restructuring if not disintegration from global affairs. We have abused our reserve currency status in many ways and unfortunately we gave away our industry to China. All of of naval, air power, new ICBMs are all backlogged and riddled with cost overruns. We buy our Uranium from Russia. Pathetic. Our enemies know this and a split with NATO would be happy times for our Eurasian adversaries.
why would any EU nation align with anyone outside the EU in such a situation?.. the combined EU has enough nukes and airfoces to defend ourselves
She's right! No doubt about that!
My father always told me: there is only one important piece of wisdom for a husband. The wife is always right and you have your peace.😂 You’re doing a great job. Carry on! Greetings from Germany. Slava Ukraine! 🇩🇪🤝🇺🇦🤝🇮🇱🤝🇺🇸
NATO only had 1 opponent, Russia.
Global reach is not a priority.
So if the US pulls out an already battered Russia is all they have to deal with.
It will take Russia 10 years to rebuild from a weak position.
Europe over the same 10 years of investment would outpace Russia and start off with a technological advantage.
The US, on the other hand, without Europe, loses European bases, which have served as a secure weigh station for Middle East operations.
It's not a question of who needs whom, it's that NATO is stronger with the USA as a member, and the USA is stronger with support from NATO nations. The relationship is a two way street.
20 years ago, the USA could dominate the globe, but China's resurgence has changed that. Now, the USA wants NATO countries to help deal with the rise of China because it recognizes it cannot do it all by itself. Without NATO, the Italians don't sail their carrier group into the Pacific like they did this year. The Germans don't send frigates on FONOPS with the USN in the Taiwan Strait, etc. If the US leaves NATO, Europe will get closer to China, which would be disastrous for the US geopolitically.
Your wife is right, and I love the metaphors. Keep 'em coming.
Always nice to see your videos
Greetings from Spain. One must be careful when judging/evaluating the war in Ukraine, since the Ukrainians had a large amount of EX-USSR material that, if used correctly, allowed them to survive and recover part of their territory. Little by little, Ukraine is switching to NATO material, but we cannot forget the massive presence of EX-USSR material on the Ukrainian side.
Well done! I really appreciate your perspectives.
Just looking at Wikipedia, doesn't NATO have something like 34 AWACS type aircraft of a few types, once you count the 14 'shared' NATO aircraft as well?
It’s attack hams!
'SHE' is always right! Even when she isn't.
Exactly why I'll never get married.
Belgian here. With Trump in power, we may have no choice but to go without the US.
My country has more diplomats spread all over the globe than it has soldiers in the field, but we are host to NATO headquarters, and to EU headquarters, in Brussels.
I can assure you we really don’t need any massive walking security risks frequenting our corps diplomatique. And since we can’t trust Trump’s intelligence picks, and since we can’t trust Trump himself, we can’t by extension trust any US military presence over here, either.
Go. Just go.
The US would lose hundreds of bases lol
I really wish it could be that simple.
Belgium in 2024 contributes only 1.1% of its GDP to defence which shows how serious they are. Considering that there has been a full scale war in Europe for almost three years, preceded by an armed insurgency in Donbas for ten years then its hardly surprising that Trump and many others feel that some countries are freeloading. You know what its like being occupied yet you still do far too little.
As an American, I am so sorry
@@klausberfelde-je2ye According to Trump, everything is simple. The American people have chosen themselves a president who demands of reality that it be simple, … or else. What were the American people thinking?
How would the US leaving NATO, affect the US defence-industries? Does Trump care about employment or not?
You've pretty much answered your own question.
If the US leaves NATO those who remain will circle the wagons and buy everything they can from the remaining members. It would cost the American defense industry several tens of billions of dollars per year, if not more.
exactly! why should europe buy yank stuff if it comes with strings attached like it has done to ukraine? trump would have already heard from the defence equipment manufacturers.
I think he's just saying stuff his base wants to hear. I would be shocked if he pulled out.
Studies have shown that they'll need at least 18 years of military procurement contracts, just to replace the stuff we've already sent Ukraine. Our military-industrial complex isn't going anywhere.
IMO the US leaving NATO would obviously be severely detrimental to NATOs overall capability’s especially as NATO adapts and changes resource distribution. Fortunately even a weakened NATO is comfortably strong enough to to withstand and posible threats current global political state realistically poses. In the longer run I actually think this would weaken the US capability’s and positioning against potential adversaries more significantly. Not to mention the fact that this would broadly encourage European country’s to become less reliant on Americas industrial complex.
Always the She Dude! They do have some alluring stealth systems inplay! 😜
Necessity is the mother of all invention
The President of the US cannot withdraw from NATO without approval of congress
We just elected a Senate and House of Representatives that are in Trump's corner, and we're getting sick of the EU's BS.
@@jimfrazier8104 You are obviously completely unqualified to talk about matters of national security. Isolationism would lead to the end of the US. But you've got the government you wanted, and now you're going to learn what the price of that "attitude" is.
@@USS-SNAKE-ISLAND I didn't vote for Trump, I'm just pointing out the elephant in the room. As far as being qualified to to talk about national security, I'm a US military veteran, so I actually understand what it means to defend my country. Do you?
Thanks mate
Hi Wes, your videos are so interesting!
Funny thing, the first AI killer drone is the German X-Wing. The current operating system to link strategic air defence was written in Germany. The IRIS-T-AA from Germany is currently planned to replace US Air-to-Air-Missiles. The German Patriot PAC-Missiles (Patriot was like a ton of other projects co-developed between the US and Germany) are cheaper, have a longer range and are more resistant to jamming, the same goes for the German build GMLRS which only cost half as much as the US versions. The Taurus is said to be the most unstoppable Cruise Missile, Stealthy and able to whack through 15m of hardened concrete. The French-German satellite surveillance system has less satellites than the US but those they have are so good that the US constantly requests recon data from them. For example it can detect underground tunnels at absurd depths and subtle changes of the landscape.
Germany had the best weapons in WW2. Still didn't keep the Russians out of Berlin.
@@jimfrazier8104 In WW2 Russia got Land Lease and endless supply from the USA and had the Ukrainians fighting the Germans.
In 2024 Ukraine got Land Lease and endless supply from Germany and the USA.
@@CrassSpektakel "Endless supply" is not even close to reality, since it had to be convoyed on slow, vulnerable freighters that were easy prey for German U-boats. The point I was making is that Russia didn't drive the Germans back with better weapons, they did it with bodies. Germany still has great engineers building excellent weapons, but the don't have many weapons and even fewer troops. Just like with Japan, the rest of the world effectively neutered their cultures militarily after WW2.
@@jimfrazier8104 Two mistakes:
1. There were no German Ships around the two main routes (Persia, Pacific). Only the British Supply lines were under German Pressure.
2. The number of vehicles delivered to Russia outnumbered the Russian production by a factor of three. The problem weren't the Russian man power - human waves back then were even less reliable than today with almost 20:1 losses.
You see, cutting down 300 attacking Russian soldiers with no training or equipment did only require two MG34 teams and a truck load of ammunition. Stopping 50 M4 tanks, that was different.
My grandpa had to recover the dead and bury them after battle and he said he has never seen anything below 50:1 when picking up the pieces.
Later in Italy the US troops didn't fare much better, at Monte Casino he often dug graves with 10:1 US fatalities.
I might add that he usually only cleaned up after German success so he hasn't seen the other numbers. But I doubt the other side saw similiar numbers in their favor.
Also: Back in the 1940ths the Soviet Union had three times more citizens and much higher birth rates and Germany was fighting everyone, while today Russia is fighting everyone.
@@CrassSpektakel My grandpa was at Pearl Harbor and Guadalcanal. I get what you're saying about US war material helping the Russians resist the Wehrmacht onslaught, but what I'm trying to say is that the Russians drove them back with more bodies and weapons, even though the Germans were objectively better troops with better equipment. As Stalin famously quipped, "quantity has a quality all its own". Where this applies now is that while Europe can make some great weapon systems and train their armies to a high degree, they are small armies with relatively minor quantities of those advanced weapons.
Most importantly, without the massive US nuclear arsenal, they are effectively powerless against Russia if Putin goes that route. France has their own missiles and warheads, but they have a tiny fleet that Russia could conceivably sink pre-emptively, and the UK is entirely dependent on US missiles. The UK boats have had three consecutive test-launch failures, because while the missiles are American, the launch systems are their own. I've personally experienced half-a-dozen test launches on USN Ohio-class boats, and all of ours came down on target. The other ugly reality is that the tritium in the warhead decays, so they have to be recharged every fifteen years or so, and the UK has no means to do that. France could potentially help with that, but they may not have the tritium production to service both countries at this point.
a) she's right
b) don't argue with your wife when she's right
c) ignore anything the internet tells you is right if it disagrees with your wife
NATO's Europeans don't really need airlift they don't have anything but land between them and their regional threat, but it would be a much weaker alliance without the US, but it's not really up to us
The reason i have left the Indian Ocean out of the APTO Atlantic Pacific Treaty Organisation is that traditionaly countries that surround the Indian Ocean generally sit on the fence.Australia is the only continent that lies in the Indian and Pacific ,but treaties with Atlantic and Pacific countries as well.
👍👍👍
Thanks for the video, excellent as usual. When it comes to pronunciation Dassault is pronounced Dass-oh, and Thales us pronounced Tah-less. Hope this helps 😉
Supreme Allied Commander Europe say what
Well, the US went down from about 60 to basically only 3 weapon producers. They also need parts from european ones - like canons from Rheinmetall and other partners, for different systems. Imagine, what would happen, if they decide to betray the countries, that helped in the only Article 5 case ever, invoked by the US - not to mention the intelligence sharing, which is in danger for another 4 years, anyways.
Also, those countries have contacts, for maintenance, training and support of the systems they bought from those companies. Furthermore, the first layer for the nuclear defence is actually in NATO bases at Poland and Romania. Without them, the US would need to intercept every single MIRV, instead of shootiing down the missles before deploying the warheads.
Germany for example, ordered 10 THAADs and 35 F-35 alone, imagine how many units are currently in service in other european countries. What Trump would start with a withdraw from NATO, is the push into domestic european systems, independent from the clown show, happening every 4 years in the US. Other countries have satellites and defense systems as well and there is a lot about to come, in the next 5 years - including counter missiles against hypersonics.
Who would help with China or Taiwan, then - the Brits? Maybe, but they will be busy as well, depending on Trump´s attitude. I would give a shyt, if the US leaves NATO, tbh - and in fact, there was a NATO meeting without the US one year ago, already - just in case Trump gets elected. The Europeans are prepared for that scenario and one thing US citizens use to forget is: Europe got more active soldiers than the US - not to mention the reservists.
Russia got 140mil people, Europe would roll them over with 700mil. That´s a fact, Russians and US citizens never get straight. As soon as the political will is there and Europe goes into war economy - oh, boy... 🤣
When it comes to the significant other I'm always right and most of the time I sleep on the couch 😄
It's possible that AUKUS and the old ANZUS could be on shaky ground as well.
APTO Atlantic,Pacific Treaty Organisation
could be the merger of NATO and Asia,Oceania into one Organisation.USA would not want to be out of that one.
The aspect of NATO being utterly dependent on the SIGINT system highlights the role Australia plays in paying for NATOs defence. The European in their strategic brilliance have rewarded Australia’s support with a punitive trade embargo inflicted for generations.😂
Wife is always right, no need for a degree in strategic stuff
In regard to pronunciation with your wife as a happily married man of 54 years always remember " Happy wife happy life " ... she is right ! Got it 😊
EU is 500000000 people US is 330000000, Russia is 145000000, it’s time for EU to grow up
I wish America would help its oen citizens as much as they wana help other countries in nato.nato is good to have and all that as long and we help our selves as much as we help others.
Sweden sent 2 intel battlefield intel aircraft to Ukraine, outright! & Oz Wedtals may have moved on???
Yes NATO without USA is weaker. But, do we need so strong NATO, or just strong enought. Europe does not need to match US, just overwelm RU.
I believe NATO needs the USA, but I also believe the USA needs NATO. When the USA needs assistance in other countries, like war in Iraq, it relies on its allies like NATO. I do believe that NATO countries need to increase spending drastically, and this gas to be enforced. But America with 90% less support from its previous NATO allies (if it leaves), is probably 50% or more, less effective. America needs to keep it's friends close over these war times, and NATO needs to pull its finger out it's a55.
I'd say NATO would survive as it is so important to Europe, but without the US it would need major reform and that's something Europe seriously doesn't want. So to Europe, the idea of NATO without US is a threat that could make Europe quadruple defense spending no problem. The problem is, this is a gamble to them. With that much money at stake, is Trump serious about withdrawing from NATO or is it just an empty threat? I'll say this is not worth betting at, Europe needs to be at US levels if not more due to the threat from Russia, but then again I disagree with our politicians on a lot of things.
I don't feed Russian bots, my comment to that is just even if it happens doesn't mean American or Europe lost each other but more Bürokratie between both 😂😂😂, we still have the same meaning for freedom and democracy and a free market for everyone 😂😂😂 and I cannot help you with your Lady, I'm Portuguese living in Germany thanks new technology I can my old school English use so that not every one have problems and it takes long to formulate something understandable
Slava Ukraine 🇺🇦🇵🇹
The Us has comsec equipment etc based in other countries that benefits everyone
If the US leaves NATO the result would be the most powerful military force in Europe goes home. That means the largest Air Force goes away. The largest navy sails back to home ports. Majority of NATO’s air defense systems are packed up and shipped home.
NATO nations would actually have to spend money on the militaries. Defense companies like BAE Systems, Kongsberg, Rheinmetall, Saab Bofors, Thales Group, etc will lose billions of dollars. Funny thing about this part. Even though many European companies supply the US will various weapon systems. Every system from these companies must be made in the US. So, the US government still would have access to all the assembly, manufacturing & equipment from the companies. Thru a Presidential act.. nationalization of those assets wouldn’t hamper the supply of weapons to the US. Just those companies wouldn’t be able to charge the US.
Luckily Trump can not pull the United States out of NATO .not without a HUGE amount of support in Congress.
You young guys haven't learned yet, happy wife happy life.
I guess related to the new Strategy NATO Members would be forced to spend at least 2.5 - 3% of their GDP to fulfill their duty...
so from my point of view, it would make more sense to ask this question in future may be in 10 or 15 years.
David killed Goliath and cut off his head. I dont see the analogy.
Why you putting the European part of nato down as if we cannot look after ourselves???
Hi Wes, sorry mate, your wife is correct. Also, what are your thoughts on the proposed, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard? Seems the rest of the Five Eyes are not to keen. 🇦🇺
Trump may pull the US out of NATO, but that would only be temporary, as is Trump
Two words: Defence Spending. No NATO = no spending in the US.
Hi Wes, as always good comments by you; and I agree. However taking a different angle on this; the NATO alliance is also exactly that, an alliance (and not something like a government). So I would wonder just how much influence the US is having on preventing NATO members from getting involved more deeply than they would like to as Nation States because of that alliance and the role of the USA in directing it. Anders today has released a god (as always) analysis of the misunderstanding held in the west by what "victory" means for Russia and what their goals actually are.
The few (but not stupid) Americans I know have less than no idea what the conflict is about (meaning much of what they "know" is actually wrong) and perhaps it is that the US (in this case) has made the earlier engagement of the European NATO partners more "hesitant" because of the US position of using arms.
Of course we (me and perhaps you) will never know to what extent this is, but its something I often ponder (as one who has a great fondness for Finland)
Best Wishes
Speaking of pronounciation, the Dassault Rafale lacks that extra "e" that you added. It's not "Raphael", like one of the Ninja Turtles. _ra-fal,_ not _ra-fa-el._
For the algorithm!!!!
from Canada, no, the metaphors gotta go........do you really think or believe, trump, knows how much military hardware, is at his beck and call? do you really think or believe, trump, would send anything to harm putin, his friend? Wes, you gave a really good synopsis of what is available but thinking it would even be considered............
Your wife is correct.
The world's only hope is that Trump doesn't implement all the things he said he would, especially because he wants to leave NATO. Our only hope is that he's not competent enough to accomplish his goals.
Why not?
You're better off knowing who you can rely on.
Why every time you talking it looks like you're dancing😂👍🇺🇲🇵🇷🙏🇺🇦
As someone who was stationed on "Freedom's Frontiers" during the Reagan years, I cannot imagine Nato without the backbone of the US
the rest of NATO dont need US overseas bases, Canada is automatically protected by neighboring the US, no matter any allaince, the rest of the EU NATO still has French nukes and enough of a combined airforce, economy and industry to hold our continent against any of the Kremlin orcs Ukraine hasn't delt with...
Yes, it was necessary back then, but times have changed.
Maybe Trump was exactly what European NATO members needed. It's time to take our defense into our own hands, along with the expansion of our defense industry (Ukraine has well shown our deficits). It's our fault that we are basing the defense of our homes and families on the election results of a country whose civilian population probably wouldn't even be affected in the event of a war. Don't get me wrong, Europe has a lot to thank the USA for, but we finally have to stand on our own two feet, with or without NATO or the USA
Europe would wipe the flood with Russia
One of Europe's biggest issues is and remains the eternal "herding cats" syndrome. Sure, things might look half decent on paper, it's in the implementation where things fall apart.
You are so cute when you start posting photos of you and your wife. But NATO certainly does not need the US to face down a second rate power like Russia, especially after it has gone toe to toe with Ukraine for three years. Yes, it is just that simple.
Europe’s also fallen behind in GDP. Until ~2008 it was bigger than the US but has steadily fallen behind and is now only 80% or so. It’s a bit better by PPP, but replicating US scale gets harder and harder the smaller Europe gets in relative terms.
US GDP might be bigger, but the US national debt is also much bigger, and still growing. The US only keeps functioning as long as the politicians allow the debt to increase.
The nominal amount is growing but QE and inflation has stabilised US debt in real terms.
USA is an importent member , but they are not NATO . The rest of the members are not puni little third world countries , so dont make USA sound like its the entire NATO.
NATO will go on existing and without chaos , sure USA is a big country and a big military . But as we have seen in Ukraine , big and bad is not always the best , brain and equipment go a long way .
the name of a weapons platform is from the military, not how a poorly informed news outlet popularizes a misnomer or incorrect phrase. I like the proper name. even if I am a computer nerd, not a weapons nerd. :)
Honestly... US will never leave Nato, and I don't believe that is what Trump wants either.
He is a businessman and this threat tp "leave" Naro is only his way to reinforce his message that all member states as far as possible have to carry their own weight and then some.
I have never really understood why the US accepts to pay for defending half the world. Germany, Taiwan, Korea, and the list goes on...
Ofcourse I understand what's in it for the US and their military industrial complex which is so closgly tied to the governing power. But still: it has always seemed a bit unfair to me.
This is what Trump wants to change. And he always goes to the extreme when he opens the bidding. To make sure the other party understands that he does mean business.
I think his strategy is very good. For the US and for the european safety. A lot of countries put too little into their defense budget. And now they have to take a bigger responsibility for their own security.
My country, Sweden, is upping its defense game. We had cut back too much on defense spending over the decades after the fall of the Soviet union. Although admittedly, the defense we had left certainly was top of the line, but it was too small to face the threat of the new Russia. We are lucky to have a big advanced defense industry and it's easier for us than for others to step up though.
I think all nations should spend at least 5 percent on defense for years to come. Russia must be stopped before their appetite for expansion grows stronger still.
correction: trump is not a good businessman. he couldnt run a casino profitably in spite of him saving money by ripping off anyone he subcontracted to build the place.
In terms of US spending as it pertains to NATO specifically, the US does not spend significantly more in terms of per capita gdp. The war in Ukraine is a recent anomaly in that respect, but even there, US direct support for Ukraine is too often exaggerated. Much of the 'Ukraine' spending goes back into the US economy. Additionally, the quoted figures relating to funding the US millitary include a bunch of stuff that European countries do not include in their military budgets.
That said, Trump would be a fool to break up any of the defence agreements. We're stronger together.
If the us got out they would change from NATO to ETO... European Treaty Organization.
Eeee - no, the US isn't leading in development of nearly anything. Not even in airdefence, cruise missiles, ammo - small arms and artillery. Tanks and infantery combat viecles is absolutly on par and above US counterpart. Sweedish and german made subs is way better suited for european needs than US boomers + surface navy is also top notch. Nucelar we are also more than suficiant to deter Russia. US is far better in beeing an empire militare, wich is of no interest to Europe - + we are way more people than the US! - Even the Whitehose is protected by Norwegian air defence!
Yes. And to further that , they would probably be better off without the strongarming that we do .
Grow up!!
Europe can’t pay for their own defense
I think Europe is USA's defense industry customer number 1.
Time to change that. Or we will beg, like Ukraine has to do. No thanks!
NATO needs to pay for services rendered. No more free lunch.
How is it a free lunch?
Did USA pay European NATO member states for us helping with USA's first NATO article 5 situation in Iraq and Afghanistan after 9/11?
It's based on _participation,_ not on hand-outs!
NATO is supposed to be based on, well uhmm, on the _Bring Your Own Booze_ idea. The idea is that each member spends 2% of its yearly budget on defense. It's meant to be a Dutch Treat party. Trump is mad that not everyone is bringing enough for their own.
But NATO isn't in any way in debt to the US. There is no bar tab still open. That's not how this works.
do you have no idea or are you a hostile troll? anyway ... :-D
If the usa leaves nato they would have no allies 😂
We can still be allies but not forced to defend people who have decided over decades that their own safety and survival isn't worth investing in. We should leave and sign a deal that they will have to lose an entire country and have at least a million soldier deaths before the we save them. It's absurd to fight for people who willingly refuse to invest in their own security. Their survival is in their hands. Just like Ukraines faitnwill come down to how weak Europe is. Plenty of money and resources to have the biggest and best military apparatus in the world but they chose to force US to save them via NATO laws. They also vilify Jews for defending themselves against muSSlims. They mass import Musslims stupidly thinking that will improve their countries. Turkey is funding terrorist groups and will soon support direct genocide attempts against Israel if the rest of NATO doesn't stop them. They also chose to ally with Russia militarily over NATO. NATO is good on paper but what Europe has shown is that they are weak and pathetic and not worth our backing unless they prove they are willing to stand up for the values they claim to have and support Ukraine to complete victory.
SLAVA UKRAINE 🇺🇦 🙏🏽 🪖 !! SLAVA TO THE UNCONQUERABLE UKRAINIAN PEOPLE 🇺🇦 !! SLAVA TO THE MAGNIFICENT LEADERSHIP OF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND SLAVA TO THE UNSTOPPABLE , FEARLESS AND PATRIOTIC WARRIORS OF THE UKRAINIAN 🇺🇦 NATION 🪖 !! MAY ALMIGHTY GOD 🛐 CONTINUE TO BLESS YOU AND KEEP YOU STRONG AND FREE !! SEMPER 🪖 FIDELIS 🇺🇸🇵🇷🦅🌎⚓
If you are married then your wife IS always right!!! If you're divorced then it's because she WAS always right!!! 🦘🦘🦘