Trump Could Abandon NATO. Could It Survive without America?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 ก.พ. 2024
- → Subscribe for new videos at least twice a week!
th-cam.com/users/biographics...
Love content? Check out Simon's other TH-cam Channels:
Biographics: / @biographics
Geographics: / @geographicstravel
MegaProjects: / @megaprojects9649
SideProjects: / @sideprojects
Casual Criminalist: / @thecasualcriminalist
TopTenz: / toptenznet
Today I Found Out: / todayifoundout
Highlight History: / @highlighthistory
XPLRD: / @xplrd
Business Blaze: / @brainblaze6526
Simon's Social Media:
Twitter: / simonwhistler
Instagram: / simonwhistler
![[TH]FFWS SEA Spring 2024 Final](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/TK2mu-8yBFU/mqdefault.jpg)
Imagine if the mainstream media in the US could honestly report on risks and current events that are taking place within the US like this.
They can. They just don't want to and/or are instructed not too. Duh
Instead it’s just DURRR BIDEN OLD
(Which, he is, but he also isn’t threatening to destroy the military alliance that is the bedrock of western liberal democracy.)
@@xyzpdq1122and that alliance is utterly unable to actually dobits job. 1 member nation shouldn't be doing the majority of the work. Listen to the vid. Majority of members need YEARS to get into a state to actualy fulfill there obligations. NATO is rife with compliance nations. I disagree with Trump but he has a solid point. NATO need to fulfill there obligations.
@greyhunter3271 yep trump is forcing them to pay thier fair share
As an American whose mainstream media is Koch owned, stories have a corporate filter/bias that prevents corporate news from acting like they are wholly neutral.
Regardless of what Trump said, every NATO should meet their obligation in terms of budget contribution.
So exactly what trump said then?
@@justinpellmann3084 Not only what Trump said, but what Obama, W, and Clinton said. This complaint has been ongoing for the past 20+ years.
I agree with Trump’s comments up until he said he would encourage Russia to attack the underpaying countries. I was kinda with him up to that point
@@adrianbartley8173 thats called motivation to follow the rules you agreed to
@@adrianbartley8173Trump says some really scary things. but neutrally speaking, it would be a very savy tactical idea.
Like sending a brigade of solders to their death distracting the enemy, while withdrawing the majority of your army for a more advantageous attack that would turn the war around.
...very shady and diabolical, but tactically a smart move
Considering how much defense spending the US does, 2% is a fairly small ask
Most are sold to others. Much like China and russia. Those who don't make them, spend a lot more.
So when you hear that percentage think about how much goes where instead of seeing numbers. We are talking military not accounting.
Us spending is at roughly 3% and 60% of that is on nukes. Given nukes aren't exactly useful that's only about 1% on things actually used in a war.
@@why_waitI promise you the F-35 programs, our 12 billion dollar boats, the insane amount of ammo, and all the other technologies are not just nukes. Granted having a good and up to date arsenal is definitely good if your opponent is Russia.
@@why_waitUS was spending 4% & above for decades
@@why_wait1. The US has spent over 4% for decades, with it being 4.2% as recently when Trump was in office and brought up this issue in the first place. Besides that, the US has the largest economy in the world, so even if they met the minimum of 2%, it would still drastically dwarf every other NATO members defense budget.
2. Nukes aren't useful? They're the greatest deterrent in the history of mankind. Theres a reason the only countries that engage in open warfare since 1945, is when one has a nuclear monopoly over the other. Just bc they're never used in any wars, besides in Japan, since they were created doesn't mean they're "useless".
It’s so crazy the way the mainstream talks about a NATO-Russia conflict like it’s the logical next step.
there aren't very many dominos left to fall in that.
@@Kastrenzo74 it could have already happened several times. ruzzia keeps violating NATO airspace with missiles over Poland and Romania with several impacts and deaths to civilians. Hell they even flew combat troops on helicopters into NATO airspace over Poland in a show of force.
@@yoeriw7099it was air defense missle of the 404 country
It is something that NATO needs to prepare for but NATO will not start it Russia will
@@keonliller_2287 yeah no, Romania was ruzzia and that killed someone I believe, and the air incursions with both missiles and troop carrying helicopters is all ruzzia. But hey, swan lake will be playing on state TV in the not too distant future and Ukraine will still stand while whatever is left of putler will be dragged through the streets.
You mentioned South Korea as one of the leading arms manufacturers... Not really a surprise if you consider who their hostile neighbor is
South Korea is behind Germany, UK and even Italy in respect to exports. its the 8th largest exporter in the world.
And who's covering their ass.
And given how strong NK has been posturing lately they have to survive. Just sales from the US won’t cut it anymore.
💀
Neighbours 😂 china will feel hungry
It’s worth mentioning that Article 5 has already been invoked once on September 12th 2001. All allies responded to the US call and our soldiers supported US war on terror for twenty years.
And yet we still did all the fighting, fuck nato pull the US of out of it . Not our fault Europe is a washed former image of itself.
I heard apparently Sas troops got prepped as soon as they heard news didn't even need the go ahead by command
Waste of a time that war was
@@heybeter9505 From our end, the common people, yes. Absolutely worthless. But ever since Reagan and Bush there has been a list of Middle Eastern nations the military industrial complex wishes and aims to disrupt. This is known. And every POTUS since, Republican or Democrat, has taken part in that scheme. So they got exactly what they wanted.
The war of terror failed and was a mistake. The argument trump makes is that if you're a part of the alliance then you need to pay your part as well as participate in any and all required NATO member state activities, it's all a part of it not just some parts count and some don't. Paying your part and playing your part for article 5 are BOTH to be expected, the fact that your country showed up to Afghanistan doesn't make your country exempt from paying your part. That said from what i've read on the subject i dont think 2% gdp is to be expected until 2024 sometime so when trump said it as president he might have been in the wrong, and i think from a geopolitical stand point it would still be in Americas as well as other nato states best interest to discourage and respond to russian aggression there should be consequences of not fulfilling your commitments.
Thanks for reminding me I haven’t taken my anxiety pill this morning.
What are these pills? Asking for a friend.
@@mrmikron Paroxetine my good friend!
this is called doomscrolling my friend
@@Greenranger123 And what pills do help with that?
@@mrmikron dont do pills meditate it helps the soul
As an American I feel as though everyone in NATO should carry their weight as they agreed when accepted into NATO. Period.
You can't even give Ukraine weapons to defend itself when Rus has already threatened to take back Alaska
@@why_waitcan’t? What has America been doing the past 2 years?
@@why_wait BROO WE GOT SAME IQ!! -💯
@@why_wait...
@why_wait have you been living under a rock for like the past 2 years? We've been donating A LOT to Ukraine.
I think you're forgetting something vital, Simon - regardless of whether thr US is in NATO or not, she will absolutely be willing to make bank selling war equipment to it.
I'm sure the USA might still be involved but just not as a "requirement", but more as a "does it benefit us" idea.
It does also mean that Europe would have a strong incentive to stop buying American weaponry and equipment in the future and restore their own MI complex to serve their needs. Nobody wants to be reliant on a non allied nation for their defence needs.
@balinthehater8205 the manufacturing would boost the economies.
@balinthehater8205 correct, but you also don't want to have to completely restart your MI basically from scratch, while defending your country.
Not to mention..most European citizens most likely would be upset about losing their social benefits they hold so dearly and decry against the US..as they start realizing how expensive it is to maintain a strong standing army and have to pour millions or billions of free tax money used for social benefits, into the military industry...
So i would be shocked if any European citizen would so easily give up their education and Healthcare so easily..especially when they could instead buy what they need from the US.
10:17 It is worth noting that aside from the US the countries hitting their target spend are the ones that are also the closest to the Russian border. Almost like those who are geographically closest too and with the most recent historical memory of Russian aggression and repression know the importance of being good members of the defensive alliance.
Britiain also meets it's spending and is probably the most secure of all NATO partners with it's own nuclear deterrent and navy to defend it's waters but it still pays what has been agreed.
Greece is also #2 on spending in NATO, which I found interesting. I'm assuming it's because Turkey is also a member.
Nothing is too simple. Spending same. Sorry, long but interesting story to search on internets @warographics:
Look 1/2: Look at submarine stuff, Sweden, erhm - "it was understood usa did forays" aand politicians didn't know (also Olof Palme died, not related). So when usa (the watermark thing)-colors were ejected from sub that Swe closed in Sweden held back for a day. Now it's generally said military ok'd forays, politicians not so much.
Look 2/2: So, come closer to this day, some nato members have sold "cheap" "to-scarp" "leopard 2"'s to, say, sold to Finland, doubling Fin amount of tanks before it joined NATO. Also deal Fin+Ger, update said tanks to newest version for very cheap. Also said seller nation's defense minister had to resign...
Nothing is simple. Please do check on this if interested, I do not have knowledge of internal politics (or militaristics) of, say, Netherlands. So one may argue said 2% is KNOWN to be kind of suggested, and sometimes, when politicians can't do thing it is still done by militaries in the alliance. Even when some non-alliance nation is in the deal.
there are two points that are vital to remember for the sake of honesty.
First off, countries like poland are net-recipients of EU funding, meaning that they have more leeway with surplus funds.
secondly, Countries like germany are spending a percentage of their GDP on financial aid to ukraine, so its not just about military spending.
Lmao Germany has attacked Russian twice in the last century. Try again
The US would not sit back and let Russia attack NATO, but seriously asking 2% is not much.
Playing hard ball with some of these politicians is the only way to get them to pay their 2%.
Idk Trump seems pretty aggressive with his Isolationism.
The house just delayed another vote for aid to Ukraine, the Republican house leader called the house in recess, so they won’t be back in session to vote for another 2 weeks.
The Republican house speaker said the house will not be rushed to pass an aid package to Ukraine or Israel.
The Republican Senator of Ohio JD Vance a stanch ally to Trump also said “the US cannot be funding wars/crisis’s in Eastern Europe, the middle east and the Asian pacific all at the same time”
@@beasley1232 I support Ukraine, not because of the media hype about them being a great democratic state (they are not), but for other reasons including but not limited to in 1993 the US, UK, and Russia guaranteed Ukraine's territorial integrity if they gave up their Soviet nukes, Russia attacked unprovoked, Russia has been targeting civilians. and I don't like what notions China might get about Taiwan if the West backs down to Russia. Backing down here might cause a war in the Pacific.
Having said all that the US has sent $76.8ish billion in aid to Ukraine and this is about another $66 billion
There are 165 million tax payers in the US so every tax payer has paid about $470 for this war, and this bill will almost double that. Is it worth it? Probably, does it save money down the line, Quite possibly. Is it more then less ethical to help a people defend themselves, I think so.
I do not think Trump is an isolationist so much as he is sick of the US being a piggy bank. 'America first' does not mean (and no one else) It just recognizes the reality that a governments priority have to focus on their citizens first. Politicians don't seem to like change the US has been crying for decades about NATO meeting the 2% spending and nothing happens. Trumps tough talk whether you like it or not was the first thing that brought change to that.
Remember everyone laughed at Trump when he warned Europe and Germany in particular about becoming dependent on Russia for their energy? He was right, just as he is being proven correct about NATO spending being inadequate. Hell we are learning that even US production is inadequate in several key areas, mainly artillery rounds and smart weapons.
@@maddslothii2532 Taiwan is a different story from Ukraine.
The USA has consistently stated publicly that they will militarily defend Taiwan in case of a possible Chinese invasion. The Pentagon and the US Secretary of State has tried to walked back on Biden’s comments saying that the USA still supports the 1 China policy.
point of order. We spend all this money to defend against Russian aggression . so now we are using this money for what? To defend against russian aggression. Yes it is though a proxy but it is a country that we have treaties with at this time.When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, Ukraine had the world’s third largest nuclear arsenal on its territory. When Ukrainian-Russian negotiations on removing these weapons from Ukraine appeared to break down in September 1993, the U.S. government engaged in a trilateral process with Ukraine and Russia. The result was the Trilateral Statement, signed in January 1994, under which Ukraine agreed to transfer the nuclear warheads to Russia for elimination. In return, Ukraine received security assurances from the United States, Russia and Britain; compensation for the economic value of the highly-enriched uranium in the warheads (which could be blended down and converted into fuel for nuclear reactors); and assistance from the United States in dismantling the missiles, missile silos, bombers and nuclear infrastructure on its territory. So why is a certain party stonewalling when we have this agreement in place?
@@maddslothii2532
@@beasley1232 Yes that is true, but reality and what yes men tell their strong man dictator are two different things. We already have seen that In Ukraine. Xi like Putin got rid of the people who will tell him the truth he don't want to hear long ago. Xi sees the chaotic bumbled withdraw from Afghanistan and if he sees capitulation to Putin and his yes men are telling him "Yes sir our military is the best, they can totally take Taiwan."
Who knows what will happen.
Isn't these 2% supposed to be spent on their own defense capabilities ?
Yes
Correct. They don't have to give any money to nato, they only need to invest in their own military to show they will be capable of helping others if needed.
If Iceland has no military what are they spending their 2% on?
@@zvbxsee the recent nato spending video, he explains it
@@Qwerty-oj3qw Ok I watched it so that being the case Iceland should not be a part of NATO.
It should be noted: The United States has something like 4,000 M1A2 (I believe) Abrams tanks just sitting around somewhere in North Dakota or some shit that have never been used. Because we keep building them even though we aren't using them. Even if the US didn't get militarily involved, I don't think the lack of tanks would be a problem for long.
Tanks are only a small part of a war, they are useless without proper support, see Ukraine/Russia for reference. Tanks dont win wars and never have.
That was basically what Trump told the NATO countries when he was president and pressuring them to spend more. We have all these weapons that they could buy, but when he said that, they got all hissy and acted like we were trying to scam them. We were accused of running a protection racket "You either buy our weapons or we're not going to protect you". Heck, Greece and Turkey are both NATO members who buy Russian weapons, while we protect them from Russia. They won't buy our weapons and help us out, even though we spend money protecting them?
Bloody oath mate. Great to see someone who understands this stuff
@@paulwoolcock6364...You two do understand that the most advanced armoured fighting vehicles have a max effective range of 2 km ...if they enjoy air superiority, and are out of range of ballistic missiles.
Add the threat of rolling over any sort of booby trap, and your effort typing those comments were completely wasted.
Edited to Correct Autocorrect
We move tanks from California to Texas and then Texas back to California, every 2 years. When it happens the usual suspects freak out ( especially when a democrat is the president) . I’m still waiting for Obama to seize muh guns and lock me in FEMA camp in Texas . And same with Bill Clinton .
10:05 - all im saying is, if greece can hit the 2% that says a lot of other nato member who cant.
Edit: 300 updoots hot damn. I wanna respond to comments but unfortunately I left my wrecking ball in my other pants and without it there is no getting through these brick walls. Oh well. Keep it civil down there guys!
Greece’s gdp is like $10 😂
@@quickclipsmma1095 thanks for strengthening my point.
Greece can't even pay there own bills but at least there doing the right thing
most NATO member states are expected to pay 2% by the end of 2024
@@adidascap9441First they are only thinking about maybe going to 2% after Ukraine was attacked. Trump brought this problem up in 2015 before being elected.
Second, Its not a guarantee, its not everyone, and its still years later. Fact still stands NATO is full of free riders. If Trump didn’t have a point on this specific issue nobody would be worried.
Why should US taxpayers continue to foot the bill?
Trump is a real taxpayer right?
You don't understand NATO or what the 2% means. US tax payers fund the US military. Every other country funds their own military.
What bill? In the end the US profits from war
The US should continue participating in NATO to maintain the stability of the global world order.
What bill ? USA dosnt give free weapon.
That 2% minimum defense spending is every bit as required as Article 5. You don’t hold up your end of the deal, you’re in breach of contract. Pay or pound sand.
"Can only field the exceedingly goofy Admiral Kuznetsov carrier. Of which we trust is somehow managing to sink even though it's in dry dock".🤣🤣🤣
Westerners arrogance doesn’t match their paranoia of ruskies invading their beloved democracy 🤣🤣🤣
only the superior russian mind could come up with the idea of an aircraft carrier with most submarine capabilities, we are still working on the surfacing technology tho
@@Rubicola174 Yeah that thing is being held together by tow lines and pure copium.
Trump also said and did this as President. He also gave praise to Poland for doing its part and went after Germany for lacking
He walked in, smelled the air, and said "It smells like weak allies in here".
But in all seriousness, if a country isn't meeting its obligations, get bent.
Also, the US nuclear stockpile is like 60% of the US defense budget, so we could basically meet our obligations on nukes alone.
Countries started paying much more after he stepped in and called them out. And as soon as he said this, a record number of countries promised to step up again. It worked
If i remember correctly many of these nations increased their contributions to NATO because of trump.
It will be our military personnel who will be sacrificed so yes they’d better be paid up before sending in our troops!
@@resqjason2 Apparently many are now as well just because of the possibility of him winning. He's not even president and he's forcing these countries to get their shit together lol.
Good. The US shouldn't subsidize your defense.
It's been doing this since cold war and will continue to do so. What are you going to do about it?
Reading between the lines, the "big country" Trump was talking about was Canada🇨🇦.
Yes...
We, in Europe should in my Opinion, focus on our own ability to produce our own miltiary gear too. Espacially fighters since the US isnt going to be a reliable supplier, depending on whats happening in the future. Therefore espacially projects like the british italian japanese fcas or the franco german fcas should be a focus in the future too. All in all focusing on more autark production and less dependence on US next gen jets espacially.
This is precisely what Macron was trying to say when US media mistranslated him. A stronger Europe means a stronger US and standing as equal partners.
As an American I agree, should’ve been happening all along. We have too many domestic issues needing financial attention to be paying for the majority of defense for other countries. That includes those outside europe too, America needs to focus on itself and strengthen its own status military, economically, and culturally.
Europeans should pay a higher percentage then the us for nato. It’s their continent.
That's what bothers me so much about Europe buying the F-35 instead of European fighters. They are super high in maintenance and require specialty parts only made in the US. If Russias asset in the US, Trump starts trade embargoes against Europe, they could see their fighter fleets crippled
@@tomfox9083you know that the us could call for nato too right ?
Wait, its Friday and this is not a Situation Room? Wow, the world must finally be at peace, right? Right?! ...
Guess again
surprise my man
What about FUBAR, unfortunately.
@@MetalMouse67SNAFU
Were it so easy
I mean, as an American, many of us can't afford homes, barely afford groceries. Homelessness is the worst it's ever been.
Getting real tired of subsidizing other nations. I mean helping friends is great and it should be done, but not when your family is struggling.
*Edit* I'm not saying we shouldn't abide by our obligations but there needs to be a give and take, not just give.
as a russian troll you can't afford any English skills
Please understand that the issues you are facing in your society are not derived from the money spent on foreign aid. The US has the money to fix many of those problems, or at the very least make great headway in fixing them. It's the system put in place and the corruption that enable the issues you see today. If you stopped sending money out, not only would that money not be put to fixing your issues, it would also have the effect of reducing the money your country makes.
Stopping foreign aid isn't a solution for the US and would drastically have a negative impact on the country's standing in the world but also within it's borders.
Stop taking Fentanyl bro
Your entire country post world war 2 has been about allies and power projection across the globe. I don’t understand why you clowns can’t understand this. If the Americans don’t do it, Russia or China will.
Yeah, but that's not because you lack in economy or resources. It doesn't matter how much money is pumped into the US, y'all are going to keep on starving with each war that the US starts and gets involved in.
Smashing it as always!
After ALL THAT, 2% sounds kinda cheap doesn't it?
It's not so much about the 2% it's more about how much power can you generate for example after Finland gets done with it's naval and air-fleet upgrades the projected rate to sustain Europe's one of the strongest armies is 1,8% key to this is the general conscription being very cheap way to generate lot of man power when needed.
@xYarbx the overall point is IF other NATO nations had all been spending the 2% at a constant level since they actually agreed to spend they'd right now be better armed and provisioned to the (again agreed upon) NATO standard, and even IF the US didn't support them (which would almost certainly not happen) they'd be in an excellent position.
The origin of the NATO arrangement of the US shouldering the actual defense burden steams from the post WW2/Cold War Era when the idea was to allow Western Europe to invest in reconstruction and force the USSR to split their budget between militarization and reconstruction. This would allow the re/developing countries to see democracies to provide a higher quality of life and dissuade them siding with the communist. It was a win-win scenario, Europe got to patch up its wounds in relative safety, and the US got to take the lead as the next superpower.
But after the Cold War ended most (all at one point or another) of Europe rested on the US's laurels and stopped investing because A) they didn't see a treat any longer and B) they were buying mostly from the US and they didn't want pay what they likely saw as an unofficial tax to a foreign state.
But the US kept spending since, in all but name, every other country on earth agreed that they were now the world police. And Russia ALSO kept spending, slowly but surely, building a formidable force under Europe's nose. And the Europeans, who had grown a little decadent on their defense spending savings, STILL expect the US to waft the smell away for them.
Now here we are at the present and the US is looking a Europe complaining about a bully that they've done very little to prepare for and have the audacity to be offended when the US calls them out for being cheap over the two or three DECADES!
@@ryanacorn5367 1st because Europe was able to build its economy backup this helped USA because Europe is the single biggest USA export market. 2nd the 2% was agreed only back in 2014 and the language says allies must start working towards it time line was not agreed on. 3rd it's in the perogative of USA to ask allies to meet that target faster but not doing it in the typical diplomatic way puts us all closer to being at war. Heck there was just the meeting of defense ministers in NATO that would have been perfect opportunity to bring it up since I am sure some division of labor is gonna take place. I would love nothing more than to have stronger allies to watch our back here but this ain't the way to get there. Also pretty dumb for Trump to talk about paying like it's some sort of security subscription. When the right language would be defense investment. From some things I've seen his supporters don't seem to get this difference.
It's more than reasonable to expect participants within an agreement to keep their end of the bargain. I can understand NATO post-WWII when Europe was in shambles, literally, and was in full rebuild mode. But come on man, those nations not formerly under Moscows control has gotten decedant as you said. When Britian is relegated from world power to a regional power who may not have neither the manpower nor equipment to fend of an invasion says something. I get it, Kuwait, Kosovo and GWOT happened which tapped many defense budgets. An ungodly sum was spent in the Middle East just to see the Taliban take over and Islamist terrorist spread like wildfire. But that doesn't mean Europe should have shirked its obligations. This was preventable especially following the 2014 imvasion of Crimea so I have no issues siding with Trump on this one.
@@xYarbx @ryanacorn5367 this is why I like reading comments: you're both right, and you both express your points clearly, well done!
Imo Nato members should strive for the 2% as agreed, but the language Trump used better suits a gathering of friends after 4 beers.
"the exceedingly goofy Admiral Kuznetsov" 😅😆😂🤣😭💀
Are you sure that spouting off like a teenage girl is funny, helpful, or Wise?
@@truthsRsungpussy
@@nihil4535 ...Funny, you rely on fantasy instead of discussing Logic.
How's that work with your neighbors?
Yep, pretty sure. Now get back to the Kremlin before your boss knows you're on the internet
@@durtedesigns6549 ...Someone doesn't like the argument for PEACE.
Go Censor your lil' Sister.
I'm not her.
The capitol building shown is the one for Washington state, not DC
The European NATO (ENATO) members can easily stop the Russian army. There are only two actual questions.
The first is where ENATO would stop Russia. During the Cold War, NATO hoped to stop the Warsaw Pact somewhere slightly east of Bonn, and that only at the expense of using thousands of tactical nuclear weapons to stall and reduce Soviet forces. There's no chance Russia would make it to east Germany this time. It would never get past Poland.
But that brings us to the second question, which is how long it would take ENATO to reconquer the territory lost, and at what cost.
A related question is whether ENATO would be willing to use tactical nukes, the way NATO was going to do in a Cold War scenario, or even when trying to reconquer the lost territory.
😂, russia would steam roll europe without the usa
@@uchennanwogu2142 Sure, товарищ, like it steamrolled Ukraine.
@@lacdirkif you could handle russia, your leaders wouldn’t be scared of the usa leaving nato
@@uchennanwogu2142 "Russia would steamroll Europe without the USA". How so? If it has taken Russia this long to take not even half of Ukraine, what makes you think they stand a chance of steamrolling the entirety of Europe? That's fucking retarded.
@@uchennanwogu2142 Perhaps you should read my post first.
As a taxpayer in the US I do often find it tiresome how much tax money goes into defense spending and especially in foreign countries. I don’t feel the US can abandon them outright but it’s wrong for most of the western world to rely as heavily as it does on the US resources. I believe this reliance allows for more squandering by the government leaders both abroad and domestically and they get away with it by the old adage that the US is the defender of the free world when it’s really the taxpayer in America that’s paying the most.
The irony hurts when I see articles and posts boasting about European countries being able to manage their infrastructure and industries so much better than the US but it’s not brought up how those countries are the ones not bringing 2% to NATO.
Sure, fair point. But why don't you ever complain to for example Japan for the same reason?
@@sonneh86 Japan isn't NATO member
Because Europe is doing sooooo much better than the U.S. right now- except not really.
80% of Europe is due for economic collapse because of their age demographics. They won’t have any young people ready to work.
@@Alkriono, however Japan is a Major Non NATO ally(MNNA) which could inevitably pave the way for a spin-off alliance or broadened alliance.
@@sonneh86most people do complain about Japan. People have been complaining about the Japanese for quite sometime.
As soon as I heard that comment from Trump I kinda chuckled to myself and said "Yeah, that sounds like a New York landlord alright..."
If by landlord you actually mean "the mafia running a protection racket" then you would be correct.
Xiden Brownshirt detected.
@@captainspaulding5963shouldve put your part instead of piggy bscking like freeloaders dude
If you didn’t pay enough taxes, should the police not help you when you are being attacked? You act as if we are offsetting our allies lack of paying in full. We aren’t paying any more than 2% GDP.
The USA absolutely should not deny assistance for underpaid NATO members. They may become Russian proxies, henceforth being removed from the majority American sphere of influence. Trump is an absolute moron. That is a fact.
"Allies" they sure talk a lota shit and do a lot of backstabbing for allies.
America has few true allies, Israel and those in NATO are not among our actual friends.
really`?
like when.. Allies is a term for an entire country, not a single term politician saying dumb shit..
So who is backstabbing who? i dont get your point here
@@legatilegions8055 the eu at large has been subverting and throtteling the us for years their no better than china atleast china is openly hostile than this underhannded bs
@@legatilegions8055France sanctioning america is the early 2000s is back stabbing
@@jamespolk1925 lies, couldnt come up with anything better? 😂
It's kind of crazy that Trump saying that he'll pull out of NATO is the kick in the ass these countries need to make their contribution minimum. Not the fact the Russia is attacking a country in the East. I don't think the US should pull out of NATO, however it's kind of sad that these countries are slacking on their contributions when the threat is closer to them.
i do think west europeans does not see an immediate danger of russian agression against them whether they be in nato or not so they are slowing their spending or not increasing whatsoever but if its not the case and they indeed did think its a good idea to rely on just one country across the ocean i don't think it will make any difference if they increase their budget or not, we are all f**ked with this attitude and incompetence already. greetings from turkey.
That's inaccurate and Trump probably is playing off it intentionally. European NATO spending has been rising rapidly since Russia invaded Ukraine, in direct correlation to that event. The only countries in NATO which don't pay the RECOMMENDED (not required) 2% of GDP on military are those who wouldn't have to deal with Russia anyways: AKA those so far into Europe that they'd be protected by their neighbors for long enough to get a military up and running if they needed one. As for the ones on the border, they all pay that recommended 2% or more. Plus every country pays into the NATO common fund, a REQUIRED amount, which is their actual "bill" for being in NATO. Every country pays this and nobody is "slacking" on their actual required payments.
Rest in peace Navalny. A true hero
Heartbreaking news
may the orcs cry to the sky
Apparently just "fell unconscious" while walking in the Siberian prison they had him in.. I'm assuming the "fell" means pushed, and "unconscious" means off a cliff
Putin is scared...he is very worried
not a hero, another Russian imperialist that would continiue Putin policy, look at his stance on Ukraine and other subjects, he criticized Putin for not being nacionalist enough
You mentioned the black sea fleet...
The black sea fleet is currently getting MAULED by a nation that HAS NO NAVY.
Just in case you were wondering about the quality of Russian sea power.
@@mr.z3664 After two years of war, a couple of Donbas small towns are worth flaunting in the comments).
I mean he literally said the Russian surface fleets wouldn’t be much of a threat so no we weren’t wondering.
A couple of thing here... Russia can fix that issue, the problem here is that would mean WW3. See, the guys behind those attacks are USA's reconnaissance aircrafts. Russia have the capabilities to destroyed or at least avoid to be hit so often by taking down those UAV
@mr.z3664 going better than the Black Seabed fleet, babe
@criscris5473 they can have a few houses and a hospital, as a treat.
I really enjoy your channel. Thank you for your work.
He literally never said he would abandon nato he just wants everyone to pay their fair share for mutual defence instead of exploiting other countries.
Where’s the Americans contribution to climate change
He did when he last was in office
@nutsaboutdance
Oh, you mean like reducing our emissions per capita by 40% since 2000, something not even you Euro-parasites are capable of dreaming of?
@@nutsaboutdanceAmerica would be much greener if it focused on itself instead of Europe.
I COULDNT STOP STARING AT THE BEARD!. THAT ONE ERRANT STRAND WAS captivating
OK. I'll take the bait. I noted that errant strand seemed to be indicating something off-screen to his left.
Why the hell did you bring that to my attention. 😵💫😵💫😵💫
Damn it... I can't unsee it now 😂
I can’t unsee it now🤦♂️
Lmaoooo so true lol
10:24 Denmark raised its spending above 2%, confirmed by NATO 2 days ago.
Correct, and it is also pumping more money into it for the next ten years plus investing in domestic industry such as ammunition production
The political equivalent of knocking wood 😅
Trump is already making things great even before his election.
Thats cute. Keep worshipping your Putin lackey. @markgarrett3647
@@markgarrett3647 that spending increase was negotiated last summer.
Well done analysis.
European here (specifically British)! I’m looking at a lot of comments here from Americans who are rightfully upset about other NATO members not reaching the recommended/required 2%. And I completely agree with you, especially for us Europeans with the war in Ukraine going on right now. It's outright shameful even.
But please and I urge you, don’t compromise our Atlantic relationship or go full on isolationist mode. Though you will have the choice as voters late 2024 on who will be your next president. Think about what place the US should have in the world. I ultimately think the US is a force of good in the world, despite the mocking from other Europeans and my own countrymen. US pulling away from world affairs would mean darkness and allow more sinister adversaries to get more emboldened.
Defend for Yourself. The US is not the World Police. You are an entire group of nations, an entire continent and you rely on one nation you openly mock for defense?
I don't think we (USA) would go full isolationist just that we would focus more on our true rival China
America being isolationist is such a joke, the country has been at peace for less than 20 years of its existence
Also it wouldn’t be isolationist by any means, it wants to “stop evil non-white Asian communist country” for DARING to threaten American hegemony
@@TheSnarkyViking Agreed. Europe is more capable of defending themselves in the first place. China is THE major threat to the US economy, NOT Russia.
we europeans need to band our own military forces and industries.
As an American, I’m am all in on helping our European friends if they need help. However, it seems as if they think some believe that America should be the muscle in Europe. Europe, should be the muscle in Europe! Get your shit together!
Whos gonna buy all that american shit if it's rubble and ashes over here
Even countries that do meet the 2 percent are still neglecting their military. In the UK they are always moth balling the Royal navy and RAF bases. They recently closed an RAF base in Lincolnshire that led the famous Dam busters raid during the war. It is now housing illegal migrants. What an insult to the ones who died. The previous Labour government was constantly making cut backs and the Conservative government just carried it on. Only have 2 aircraft carriers and they spend more time being fixed than on the water.
@@gordonchard6243The UK is an extreme example. Almost nothing works in that country anymore. The waiting time for an ambulance in Devon (where a lot of my family lives), for example, can be anywhere between 15 minutes to 7 hours nowadays. The train systems are all but collapsing. Oh, and don't forget that UK doesn't have enough planes to even put on those 2 carriers that you mentioned.
What a joke of a country.
@@magg93 We don't need you to buy our shit. The U.S. is one of the few countries on earth that has the resources to be entirely self-sufficient as we were before getting involved in these foreign wars and alliances.
@@tereminI bought a Jaguar and after spending more money on mechanics than I did on the car and your point became my reality
Imagine countries getting mad that they weren't upholding their obligations and someone calls them out on it 😂
Isn't a more accurate quote "If you don't meet your treaty obligations on military spending the US is not going to pull your slack any more"?
No. ”If you dont meet spending requirements the US will encourage a dictator to invade your nation so that it will no longer exist” is closer
I wish someone would have warned NATO (sarcasm intended)of the importance of spending at least 2% of GDP on defense so we all would be ready in case something bad happens. If they had started building up 7-8 years ago we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Make that 75 years ago. Many have never paid their fair share. They haven't bothered to boost their own defenses, much less anticipate anyone else's need. Ain't it great to live rent free and let someone else foot your Cheeto's bill.
This is NOT a recent issue with NATO countries, this has gone on for decades.
I like how privileged your comment is. Man I didn’t know mooching off the United States for the past 70 years was an issue. Man now we’ll have to build our own army. Shame on them for not letting us mooch off them while we build up our forces… maybe you guys should just pay your share. Actually be involved in the mutual defense of NATO in a meaningful way. Instead it’s oh well the Americans will spend all their money and come and save us if we’re ever attacked. It’s absolutely ridiculous.
@@forfun6273 Yeah Nations that have been relying on US protection have basically been acting as satellite states of the US but pretending they are not. Japan comes to mind, who only started really spending on modernizing their military after Trump told them to get their act together. Despite being one of the countries with the highest GDP in the world, Japan had essentially no military because the US bases on their soil essentially meant any attacks on Japan would likely implicate the US as well. Same case for Philippines, Thailand, Australia and many other countries who have been getting a free ride for decades.
@forfun6273 Europeans have a habit of siphoning wealth from others for their own gain.
Whether that's directly through colonialism or through indirect means like not meeting their NATO obligations, it seems to be a cultural phenomenon.
I can’t tell you how much I enjoy these videos. It’s nice to hear someone just stating facts, and steering clear of political opinions. The world needs more content like this. Just tell us what’s going on and we can formulate our own opinions.
I've been following this channel for a long time, and generally enjoy Simon's commentary. However, there was a fair bit of melodrama in this one, and over-reacting to a hypothetical that has a very small chance of ever becoming reality.
The whole video is based on a false premise, that Trump will abandon NATO when all he wants is to make Western European countries pay, this video is nonsensical, what are you smoking there?
The sheep need to be told what to think and how to feel about it.
We will have peace on earth when we find life outside earth to fight. Like Halo's "UNSC" versus the "covenant"
Nope, not happening. This generation until there are laws to lower the corruption in politics but of course the current greedy generation won't put those laws in.
Except the life you find outside of earth will smash human to pieces be careful what you wish for kid you’re not wrong tho the day is coming trust me
Norway is the only one that surprises me a bit, at least now that Germany has woken up. That may be a very inhospitable land border with Russia, but they still have enormous amounts of exposed coast and lots of valuable offshore resources. That would be an unsurprising spot for Russia to take a little test poke at NATO just to see what happens. The Russian navy has hardly distinguished itself with its past performance, but how many NATO members are well-prepared to fight in the Arctic Ocean, especially if the Americans don't show up? All the weight would be on Britain's shoulders I think. That would also be a way to test Sweden's appetite for immediately being dragged into a foreign conflict, as they'd certainly be called upon for air support.
Sweden, Denmark and Finland would absolutely come to Norway's help
This can all be easily avoided if the members pay their share.
There is no fee for membership. Look it up. The only codicil is member countries spend 2% of their GDP on defence. NATO is not just a military alliance, it stops each nation building nuclear weapons. A world where every country has nukes is suicide for us all.
"easily avoided".
This isn't a game. Article 5 is a supposed iron clad commitment that without conditions, an attack on one nation is an attack on all.
Even just by threatening to add conditions Trump has weaknesses the strength and deterrence of Article 5, all for some clickbait headlines to pander to his ignorant MAGA base who don't understand the implications and damage to American power projection he does just by opening his mouth like this.
There is no dues, no NATO nation is delinquent because that's not a thing and never had been. The 2% target is just that, a target, a goal, nothing more.
Yet the people who clap along to this sort of power play condemn Biden for using the dollar as a weapon(which Trump also did).
It's not like America would be better off without NATO either. We have military bases in just about every single member nation and most of them spend large amounts of their military budget buying from the American military industrial complex.
What happens when comments like these compel the other NATO member states to revoke leases for American military bases and move away from buying American weapons. It will just be another case of American hegemony and influence eroding away.
Exactly. That doesn't seem like much to ask, esp. given that it is what members agreed to when they joined.
not necessarily the fair share, even just building up their own armed forces like poland does would probably be just as fine and forgivable
@@bsmithhammer and it's not even a flat fee. It's a % of their GDP. If your GDP is $100 like Greece, then it's only $2, who actually are making their commitment. There's really no excuse.
Why are they not paying for their own defence if they want to be a part of a defensive pact?
Simple. They know US are the good guys and a military superpower. They take US for granted and expects that when the shit hits the fan, just need to dangle Article 5 and the US will be there to save the day like a superhero
@@d3vilman69it's a little more complicated seeing that we dragged them into a 20 year war with a bad ending but other than that yes.
@@joeclaridy I mean with regard to the politics itself yeah it's always more complicated. But when it comes to spending 2% of tax revenue on defense, they didn't do that even well before 2001. Iraq/Afghanistan didn't affect their spending almost at all (except for the UK if I remember correctly). It hasn't even been about them thinking the US was going to help though, at least not until recently. It was mostly that no one in Europe thought that Russia was a threat anymore, and since they didn't want to use their military anywhere else they didn't think their was a point.
They all pay for a national army. They also pay for NATO membership. The US doesn’t pay extra to cover what others don’t pay. It’s not a zero sum game. It’s just less funds as a whole.
@@joeclaridy
Yes. 20 years that the Afghanistan culture could not be trained into a force to counter the taliban.
But then again, no other middle east country could fight ISIS either, showing that we need to stop defending the middle east from themselves.
I agree America keeps wasting time and money on countries that cannot carry their own water.
Well, why don't many of the EU NATO members pay their fair share?
Why should we, as the US, be your keeper? You need to learn to do your part as well. Perhaps this means the contribution needs to be made smaller for NATO partnership. I'm not sure. But we shouldn't be forced to foot the bill for NATO.
We shouldn't be in NATO at all. It violates our sovereignty and defeats the entire purpose of having an independent nation if foreign countries can just call up for us to go to a war. We are not responsible for the defense of Europe or any other foreign country nor are they responsible for the defense of the U.S.
Enough. Time to come home and take care of our own country and the citizens to which it belongs.
It's a defensive pact, you need to protect each other. If a country's military can't pitch in because they didn't prepare along NATO's guidelines it's a big problem.
Germany and France werent making their guideline payments. Plus Germans laughed at Trump at the UN when he told them to get off of Russian energy.
@@incubi51 good thing NATO didn't intervene in Syria, NATO members did individually.
The only action NATO took regarding Syria was Operation Active Fence, that's to defend Turkish airspace AFTER Syria had been shelling Turkish towns, so that is strictly defensive. It was a lacking move even then...
22:22 Simon never misses a opportunity to throw shade at the Admiral Kuznetsov! 😝 Cracks me up errytime!
Hmm being (I assume) British, Simon is in no position to show stones over carriers.
Built 2 new ones but constant breakdowns due to poor construction standards, can't afford to buy the air wings or sufficient escort defense ships to actually form a carrier group.
Just big targets 😂
@@willc1294salty much?
you jelly you don't have an aircraft carrier
@@Destroyer120296 I'd be salty having spent over £6b on 2 big paperweights
Simon jinxed it with that "yet" 😭 0:12
Countries when America comes to "help": "why would they do this?"
Countries when America doeant come to "help": "why would they do this?"
We shouldn't be the world police. Pick your battles and fight the ones you think you can win.
Spending the money more efficiently is probably as important as just upping the amount spent.
I mean, as of about a year ago Germany had "less than two days" of ammo on hand, they could start there.
@@paulie9483 the whole of the European NATO needs to just start putting in orders for off the shelf hardware from those who can deliver - as the Polish have done. Not meetings. Or posturing about trying to spend everything in their own country. Or decades long procurement cycles - see it and buy it. If Russia is showing nothing else, obsolete weapons today is much better than grandiose promises later.
@@Rory20uk 100%. If there's ammo available that fits your weapons, buy it.
Small correction: At 4:33 the video describes a NATO response to a hypothetical Chinese Pearl Harbor-style attack on America. However, the Washington Treaty has geographic boundaries that would exclude certain regions and territories from falling under Article 5.
The fact is the US have too much interest in Europe and Trump knows that.
So I don't think that he's seriously thinking about leaving Nato.
But if he really wants to and do it.
Then the EU will be able to finally take care of their own turf without the supervision of uncle sam.
Great episode, the artillery shell situation in nato is unacceptable and scary
Worse is the reaction time, that was needed to adress this issue. Waaaay to slow, if you ask me. Stupid slow politicians.
There’s also the embarrassingly pathetic quality of troops from nations like Germany on top of the positively anemic military hardware.
Sure, they were basically bullied over the years in to practically demilitarizing since World War 2, but it’s scary that such a formerly respectably strong willed culture could become so weak willed. It’s almost embarrassing that they are about as bad, if not worse than the Weimar Republic.
@@Dornan77802 West Germany in the Cold War days had a reasonably competent and well maintained military on par with a lot of NATO nations. Back when everyone actually understood that Russia and the Eastern Bloc was a threat. The "peace dividend" in the wake of the Soviet Union's collapse was ruinous and resulted in everything you just listed.
@@Rhomcompeace dividend would have been great, if America actually wanted peace with Russia. They instead chose to attempt to dominate Russia
@@ckthegreat100 And yet one only needs to look to history to understand that peace with Russia is folly.
This clearly shows what happens when a country gets to comfortable relying on others for there defense
Though this can *NEVER* be threatened among allied nations in public and issues with it need to be solved in proper meetings. If you do it, like Trump did, than you actually destroy that alliance. Its promise, to act together - to stay together, does only work, if it is never put in question amongst each other and in front of a potential rival. This jeopadizes an important piece of combined defence.
@@dnocturn84 It destroys it for Europe, but not the US. The mainland enjoys many defensive advantages and can effectively stand on its own; Europe cannot due to their own irresponsible reliance on America.
@@sniperrecon676 No, it destroys it for all of them, including the US. Europe is backing the US's claim to be superpower no. 1 on our planet. And they are an essential component, for this to still be a thing. And not just in military matters, but on world trade and finances as well.
If they some day move away from the US and actually start to ally with China, than the US being superpower no. 1 is history.
@sniperrecon676 it still destroys the alliance. There is no stipulations in NATO for coming to the aide of fellow members whether they spend or don't. That means that the US would be the one not honoring the agreement and therefore unreliable as an ally. The man who can't/won't even pay his own bills thinks to hold other people accountable. It's also not only about fighting/winning a war. Other options are coming around for all manner of military equipment and munitions. With the US becoming an unreliable ally, why should they spend any money with us?
@@sniperrecon676 Yor’re wrong, if Europe falls the US will face major economic and political consequences that will undo the value of US investment after WW2. The US didn’t put the Marshall plans in action if didn’t benefit them in the long term, a benefit that eased the US to becoming the most powerful nation in the world.
The core issue of NATO is that it is an alliance of inequal partners, leading to most nations ending up feeling (rightfully) like vassal states geopolitically.
Considering its immense size and power, no one can blame the US to be the leader of NATO.
This leads to NATO being an antenna of US political strength.
One recent example is the Paris attack in 2015; when a 100 died and 500 were injured, the then US president called the french one warning him that a call upon article 5 would not be answered; obviously it was not in the mind of the french president anyway, but this wasn't the call of the US president in theory, just cementing that at the end NATO is a US toy.
Add to that for decades the insistence of the US to sabotaging the local defence industries in europe, while pushing europeans to spend their military funds on US equipment, and you end up with reluctant nations, which cannot live outside NATO, but also which don't feel the incentive to do much effort, letting the burden of having a strong military on their overlord.
The obvious exception is nations with a direct existential threat, like bordering Russia.
If Europe does not care enough about their own security and lives to pay for defence, why should the US pay? I am American and say the USA should get out of NATO.
"Step to NATO, and you BEST be ready to deal with the whole crew..."
Simon letting his inner-Brixton show.
Simon is definately from 'Da Endz'
As someone from a postcommunist country that doesn't hit the 2% threshold, I must say I'm actually happy Trump sent our officials into panic mode. Europe needs to be able to defend itself, relying on an increasingly isolationist nation thousands of miles away doesn't seem like a good national defence strategy to me.
Especially given the increasing cultural friction between major European forces (France/Britain) and America. Americans are growing weary of their political preaching, only accelerating our isolationist behavior. Ironically, investing harder into your own military is likely to earn American sympathy.
you are of the few masculine men left in europe.
He's a wildcard and sometimes he got it right, even when he sounded crazy or like an asshole. Scaring Europe into spending on defense was my favorite random thing he did. Hey, he's probably just doing that again.
At this point if the Americans want to flush their soft power down the drain so badly we should honestly just stop counting on the charter and put our aspirations onto the Lisbon treaty. Europe can probably manage its own defence at this point and there's no reason to tie ourselves to an untrustworthy ally.
Yeah. As an American, I mostly agree with Trump on this. The U.S. does have a role on the world stage, but everyone else needs to do their part.
We shouldn't have to send American troops to help other countries if they won't help themselves.
"I will not protect you"... something he's no doubt said even more often than 'you're fired'.
I see this site got its talking points and are joining right along.
I remember when we were chastized for being the "world police."
And it's mainly euros saying it
oh how the turn tables when your neighbor ends up being a lunatic and you need the police
Almost like there is a difference between coming to support allies and invading countries to force them to do what you want...
Hehehe yeee it’s pretty ironic, isn’t it.
It’s about time for Europe to stop trying to cash America’s defense spending “blank check.” They need to have their own basic defense capabilities. Time to pay your bills Europe. (American perspective)
I don’t think Trump would deny help, but I do think his remarks will cause Europe to strengthen themselves making NATO even stronger. It’s tough love I guess.
I think so too. I think it's potentially a net-positive move, at the very least I think it will strengthen the military spendings in Europe, but what is uncertain is the diplomatic consequences that Trump's words will have.
Or it could go the other way and Ukraine is forced to give up territory or worse just because of the greed of the USA.
Cool video, as a USA citizen I very much understand the sentiment that we basically pay for everyone’s defense. While giving up potential benefits for our citizens. Meanwhile because everyone else gets their defense taken care of they get to spend all the money on social benefits.
There is definitely a growing sentiment that America hurts it’s citizens to pay for everyone else’s benefits.
I obviously don’t know the right way to go about it, but I understand the sentiments from both sides. Frankly putting pressure on Allie’s to actually contribute a bit more makes sense to me. It’s hard for me to imagine a situation where Russia rolls into a country that isn’t at 2% and the US not doing anything. Especially when the president isn’t even the one making those decisions for actual war. That would run through congress
Americans should pay us for allowing them to have troops in Europe.
I generally feel like the sentence "pay for your defence" is a bit misused. USA doesn't pay for anyones defence but it's own; It is their own decision to prioritize defense spending over social spending, but this is mostly a result of it seeing itself to have to step into the "defender of the world" role because others won't pay for their own defense. (Also, apart from that, the US has its shit boiling in a lot of inner issues, but we'll gladly leave yall to that and watch the clownshow from over the ocean.)
@@Tyger_YTYou can watch the "clownshow from over the ocean" firmly under a Russian jackboot with that attitude.
@@Flight_of_Icarus Just saying, sometimes it’s really amusing what y’all do. Like letting a man who has been impeached twice and is on trial for a federal crime run for president. Or allow a man that should be put in supervised living for not being able to articulate a entire sentence being president.
@@goldbullet50 Americans are there because Europeans want them there. Europeans should help pay for their own protection.
Its baffling to me that people find it shocking for the US to opt out of defending NATO members when they arent even doing the bare minimum of paying 2% GDP for the defense pact.
Trump isn't being unreasonable here, hes asking for the bare minimum from Europe in return for defense from the most powerul military in the world, if anything its the Europeans here who are being unreasonable.
Trump can’t have the U.S. leave NATO without congressional approval. He is just making noise.
That shouldn't be difficult.
seems like a lot of Americans want the same thing. It seems like a "good idea' until you spend more than 3 seconds thinking about it
@@darkgalaxy5548or he could just ignore the treaty
I think it's a lot like threatening to find a new apartment because your roommate hasn't paid rent in 2 months and spends all day playing Overwatch 2. You don't wanna screw them over, it's your buddy, but he needs a wake up call to get his shit together
As someone who is an independent, i want the US to be both isolationist and involved with NATO. Am i upset that the other countries dont pay into defense as much? Of course, but i also understand that a lot of our States have a GDP higher than a lot of other countries.
Its insane how long Russia has played the "Quantity is a quality on its own"
Well, it is. What we didn’t realize till they invaded Ukraine was it is their ONLY quality 😂
This takes a major toll, though, demographically. Russia’s birth rate is already well below population replacement. We’re looking at a lost Russian generation.
If Russia does win in Ukraine, it’d be a pyrrhic victory.
@@atronite 💯 correct!
@@baahcusegamer4530so far.
@@atroniteyes, it will be pyrrhic.
In my opinion...NATO need to really think about its own capabilities and Trump has since highlighted it to them during his previous presidency. Trump asking NATO to pay up their share is basically asking them to properly look into their military capabilities. Right when Trump made the statement years ago, the German armed forces had a drill and their commanders already highlighted the worrisome state of their military hardware. NATO may look ready but when war really does break out, can NATO truly stand up for itself? I just think that Trump made it clear and this time he just want to give NATO a wake up call. Even if NATO decides to buy from US or Korea, it still takes time to ship the ammo and hardware over to the frontlines and every loss of time is a loss of opportunity to turn defeat into victory or turn the situation from good to worst. Just a reminder of how in ancient China, Zhu Ge Liang, one of the greatest strategist could not press his advantage due to supply issues. Also the other issue is will NATO member nations truly follow article 5 should a war breaks out? The US military despite its strength may not be able to respond quickly even if it does honor Article 5 especially if the US gets invaded during the conflict as the American military industry would probably prioritize defending itself over Europe. Simon made a very good analysis of the situation. I don't know why but the game World in Conflict suddenly comes to my mind when looking at this situation,
I hope he does. Forget the world. Fix our country.
Bachmut fell, UA counter offensive failed, Navalny gone, and now Avdika falls. Europe better wake up from its stupor and strengthen up its defenses.
Russia has the GDP of Texas or Italy, comparably.
Russia doesn't stand a chance fighting NATO, even in the stupor or whatever.. given how poorly they do in Ukraine. But russia plays the cowards war with NATO, since they have no chance in combat.. they poison people literally and poison their minds with divisive propaganda. That is the real danger, the zombification that they have been working on for decades now. People need to wake up to that, so we don't become a big threat to ourselves.
Dude, europeans are too domesticated too care
what a great day to live in!😊
I hate to say it, it was only a matter of time with an artillery shortage.
But Ukraine could still make it a painful win for Russia.
One can win a battle and still loose a war. Especially is the win cost you more men and materials then you can afford.
It like an over withdrawal from a bank account, but the fines are what get you.
Plus, they can focus on behind the line sabotage.
Make it so Russia overextends it self, makes it harder to send needed materials, and fall back like they did during the battle of Kiev.
This is not gonna be a short war.
We need to think long term here.
@@equarg Ukraine was demographically dying before the war. Now they are losing a generation of men. Is this really the right choice?
As an American I am tired of the American military complex and its need to supply and provide for what seems like every war around the world or military actions. We need to provide for the citizens of our own country with reasonable housing,healthcare and education. My corporate government is sucking the life out of the lower and middle class through complete taxation beyond our reach. Whether it's tax on food, products, gas or personal amenities it has become overwhelming to provide for the corporate beast.
We have some of the worst public education, most expensive healthcare and affordable housing is now a tent underneath a bridge. It's time to stop funding the death of the rest of the world and look at the death in our own Nation caused by GREED!!
can anyone tell me what is background tune which make cideo more chill out
I have no criticisms against this channel, its host, its scripts, and I am happy
It will last about as long as the League of Nations did without America and be about as effective
A really simple solution would be for them to just pay. 🤯
Pay who?
The rule is that members were originally to spend (not pay America) 2% of GDP on their own defence. After the fall of the Soviet Union that expenditure requirement was reduced to 1% of GDP. In 2014 it was decided to raise the expenditure required back to 2% *by 2024* and since this is the beginning of the year 2024 this is the first year that the target expenditure is 2% of GDP
The requirement is that a predetermined amount of money is spent by each country on their own defence, not that they buy American stuff, or allow themselves to be occupied by the American military, or that they pay the USA "protection money".
It's not "all for one and one for all" as there are far too many NATO members slacking because they know America is required to defend them. If Trump saying what he said causes other NATO members to step up, good
The US isn’t required to defend anyone. Article 5 is NOT an obligation for anything except to… have a meeting and decide what to do.
They can quite easily just sit out without leaving. Though that comes w its own issues.
Lots of ppl still think article 5 is a mandatory dogpile clause. It isn’t, and never was.
@@Lord_Drokoth pretty sure that's article 4
@@shanemjn it’s 5 as well. It’s to decide what action to take. There is no mandatory dogpile clause at all.
Except the US provides roughly 2/3 of the nato budget
@@marcusfrakes5430 and is able to do so largely from the money made via its arms deals (as well as other international projects it heads). The USMIC is as big as it is for a reason. It’s not a charity.
If the US does wish to leave. I’m not against it. Though by doing to, it and its people must accept whatever consequences occur as a result. Or, reap the benefits depending on whatever the result is.
US influence in Europe would crash. Hard. And it benefits from that.
Your beard is coming long there mate *chuckles* =)
The question is could America survive without NATO. Its stretched thin now without officially being at war.
The US would do fine. I’d hate to see Poland and the eastern ones go, but in the East they meet the treaty obligations, so maybe we should just make a micro NATO that excluded the freeloaders…
Is it such a terrible request that everyone pays their part?
@@prity5631maybe they should have always been paying their obligations if they were serious about defense
Maybe the rest shouldn't have come to America's aid after 9/11.
@@WolfJarl the us didn't and still doesn't need your help an the us did 99% of the work in gwot
It’s an alliance you should do your share of the burden.
Agreed, and alliances also mean you dont leave your allies to get obliterated just bc they dont do what you want them to do. So its a double edge sword. Tbh, I do agree everyone in NATO should be putting forth their share of defense. But what is the point of a defense pact if you chose not to defend your ally when theyre attacked? Lets put this another way in different circumstances. If China attempted to invade the US, that would initiate Article 5, and all the NATO nations would be obligated to help defend us. Would it be honoring said defense pact if any nation in NATO chose not to follow article 5 just because they dont like our president? Its dishonoring the agreement EITHER way. Its a binding defense pact for a reason. And either scenario is nations chosing to bow out based on petty issues they can solve amongst themselves when their allies are under attack.
There are many points of view to this and I welcome intelligent debate over this. Its actually really interesting. Scary, but fascinating.
@@somestormchaseridjitwithwi2024 we're talking about some of the richest nations in the world, who regularly boast about their better healthcare, infrastructure, and overall quality of life. Why should the American taxpayer shell out for these countries to live in luxury, when we are unable to help homeless veterans or provide necessary services to our people? I don't agree with leaving these countries out to dry, but I definitely think American dollars are far more valuable spent on American citizens rather than the citizens and luxuries of other nations.
I feel like most did that when they sent troops to the ME for decades explicitly to help the US and no else.
they should, yes
but this doesn't mean _encouraging_ Russia to attack them. He is _encouraging_ russia to divide NATO piecemeal, which is detrimental even to those countries that do meet the spending target when Russia has a farther-advanced foothold with which to better strike at NATO
Fortunately, most of the eastern flank of NATO does meet the 2% spending target IIRC, so I don't see how/where russia could launch an attack that wouldn't trigger a US response per Trump's (self-proclaimed) rules. But still, even just the idea of doing that is very reckless and concerning. Besides, even with that sort of pressure it takes a while for the budget changes to actually pass through - will he just let Russia kill off tens of thousands of civilians in a NATO country simply because of european legislature and bureaucracy being slow?
@@steviechubbs5238 The US could pay for all of this and still easily reach the 2% goal if they wanted.
The NATO countries need to take NATO seriously and follow the rules they agreed with when joining the alliance.
NATO should have ended 30 years ago.
@@wsffff Both
18:41 Quite possibly the understatement of the year! 😂
Joking aside, really good video Simon. Keep up the great work on this channel, you guys have been crushing it. I enjoy both the content relating to current geopolitics and the ones examining historical events. 👍🏻
Nato's failure rests with Nato. America certainly spends more than 2%. We've lived, as best we could, with our commitments. If the Orange Man is angry, its because we are being abandoned to fight wars without the help that was promised. 2% is not impossible to reach. So, while I would personally not want to abandon Nato, it is being abandoned by European states not paying their share.
If you declare wars without UN approval why expect NATO members to intervene.
"Because we are being abandoned to fight wars without the help that was promised"
What might you even be referring to? In Afghanistan, European countries were there. In Ukraine, the EU has given more to Ukraine than the US, albeit in the form of financial aid rather that military aid.
This is the only correct response. 👍🏻
Who has left NATO?
I thought they just had 2 new members?
NATO is stronger today than any time in the last 40 years.
It's astonishing to me that member countries can come short in every way, but expect another country to pickup their slack...then act shocked when we're fed up that we're spending what's required and no one else does.
yup
The other NATO countries did pay their full shares after Trump told them to pay up.
I'm here to feed the algorithm. Also thank you for the amazing video
We (europ) Will now take our own security more serious
And it was necessary
Thank you trump ❤
God Bless. At least some of you got the memo. Orange man has your back, don't get it twisted, he just wants Europe to take it's own defense seriously. I PROMISE that if we Americans HAVE to deploy for a European issue, it's gonna create ridiculous amounts of animosity.
@@stillcantbesilencedevennow Orange man does NOT have their backs. That's precisely why they have to arm up. They can't rely on the US who changes their stance every 4 years, it would be madness to continue to do so.
They should go into Wartime Production and arm rapidly at the expense of their own economy short-term to secure it in the long-term, invest in nuclear capability and become less reliant on the US. It is the only way they'll be able to secure their own borders.
@@stillcantbesilencedevennow Same as when the USA invoked Article 5 and NATO responded with them in Iraq based on a bunch of lies another American president told and the attack on New York and many Europeans HAD to deploy for an American issue? I am from Europe and i lost family in that war based on the USA calling for NATO.
Trump has said that seens 2017-2018
BS! The orange idiot will come up with something else to renege on our treaty obligation even if all funding goals are met. He's in Putin's pocket. And if he had been President instead of Biden he would've allow zero US aid to Ukraine. You already see it in the House, which follows drumpfs orders, cutting off aid.@@stillcantbesilencedevennow
Maybe NATO members should pull their damn weight. Without the US, Europe would crumble so quick. Would we actually ever abandon the continent? No, but we would like to at least be partially compensated for our efforts.
The common US citizen can barely get by, become a first time home owner, or pay for food. Think we need to stop spending/sending money to other countries. US is 34 trillion in debt and inflation is out of control. Need to fix our own problem first..
(Granted I highly doubt pulling out of NATO will solve these issues)
This dude is literally the definition of what news should be.
He won't. But it is good theatrics to get the European nations to meet their financial obligations to the organization, which they regularly do not do, instead relying on the US to pull the financial weight.
And people wonder why the US spends so much on military spending....
He would. Why wouldn't he?
@@personzorzIts called an incentive. Trump was calling out the freeloader NATO members.
@@personzorzbecause it would take an act of congress.
@@aidan11162 so leaving nato does. But responding to Article 5 isn't mandatory. So he could just say "no", and sit tight in nato.
Or , hear me out ..... Pay up and avoid all of this
The problem with that statement is that its not Russias neighbours who arent meeting the guidline, its countries belgium, Spain and Italy which don't share borders with Russia.
European NATO members couldn't even sustain an air-war against Libya for a few weeks before they had to go running to the US begging for logistical and intel support. Poland and the UK could definitely put up a good fight. Finland definitely punches above its weight when its on the defensive. But everyone else is in cooked without American assistance.
1s1
Yeah, but so are you without us buying your stuff =D
pretty much all of eastern Europe hits its requirements. Its Germany and France that are the slouches.
And italy, but italy is worthless even with a war economy, so thats irrelevant.
Yep add Romania too so basically Finland, Romania, Poland would have too defend all of Europe. Remmeber UK and France have nukes so they aren't getting, directly, invaded
cooked against who?? They NATO without the US could still slam Russia into obvlivion