Should the United States stay in NATO ?

[Yvonne Smith]

This is something that has been discussed for some times now, and there are differing opinions. Especially after what happened yesterday with the Ukraine dictator at the White House, and President Trump not giving Z any further support until he is ready to have peace in his country, this is a question that Americans are talking about more and more.
Some of the European countries have said they will help Zelenskyy fund his war with Russia, but they are used to the US doing most of the funding.
Here is a chart that shows NATO spending and the breakdown of how much each country puts into it.

 

[RelaxedFit]

It's annoying to me to hear people in the US and abroad talk about what "nice things" people are provided with else where. It gets particularly galling when the facts are considered.

Defense burdens aren't shared equitably. Market access isn't equitable. Industries get moved to cheap labor or domestically subsidized countries.

It places the burden squarely on the backs of too many US workers and their families, while at the same time they get shamed and even mocked as if those are personal and cultural failings.

It sounds like this inherent unfairness was consciously implemented. A series of bribes to keep them out of the hands of the Soviets and Communist Chinese, or starting additional degenerate socialist regimes that would start slugging it out and dragging us into it again.

Today the Cold War threat is long past. Terrorism and cultural infiltration have become bigger threats to safety and stability. Defense technology has also changed, helping to stave off large-scale war as long as quislings can be held to heel even when corrupted through bribes.

We still have to keep an eye open and our hand in, turning our backs invites the dagger. But there is no reason why we should be footing so much of the bill for this all-you-can-eat feast in Europe.

 

[Shortie]

This chart does show a lot but over the last few days, I do know that many have put more into defence spending so this chart very well will change in the near future.

At the moment, after what happened on Friday in the Oval Office during the meeting with Zelenskyy, it does make it difficult to know where the US currently stands.

 

[Yvonne Smith]

Pretty much, President Trump has said that he will help with peace talks, but the United States is NOT going to continue funding a war and more people dying. Zelenskyy said he wanted the war to continue for at least another year, which means many more people will die and even more will lose their homes from the bombings. The American people are peace-loving, and we support our president not wanting to fund a war, especially one that could escalate into another world war.
It appears that Zelenskyy is now going to other countries to try and get more money to continue his war, but most countries have not done much up until now, so I do not see them helping him for long either.
Once he is ready for peace talks, he will need President Trump to help negotiate a good peace settlement for both countries.

 

[Susannah]

This is a topic I need to know more about. I’m well aware of the war history between the US and Europe. I see the benefits to Europe of having the US as a member of NATO but I am not aware of what the benefits are for the US other than world peace. Of course world peace is a great benefit for everyone.

Feel free to educate me on the finer points of NATO benefits for those of us not in Europe.

 

[Yvonne Smith]

From what i am reading today, it is sounding like Zelenskyy has been making the rounds of the European nations as well as Canada, and asking them to support his war in Ukraine. With the United States no longer contributing to any wars, a lot of NATO’s funding is going to be gone, and it is looking more and more like we may drop out if Europe wants to continue the wars.
An interesting thing is that these European leaders will now be sending in troops and weapons, as well as financing the war; so the European people are probably not going to like that part once their own people are sent there to die fighting Zelenskyy’s war.

Another thing to consider, is that most of Europe gets their oil from Russia. So, if they announce they are going to back Ukraine in this war, Russia may stop selling oil to the countries that support Ukraine.

 

[RelaxedFit]

I think NATO meant a lot more when the Soviets were in the picture. It kept a lot more countries from falling into bed with them for protection and support, or just to avoid being absorbed.

At the same time the US took on the role of global policeman on the high seas, and threw open domestic markets to Europeans by lowering or eliminating most tariffs and through "most favored" dealings.

Those bribes to remain civil continued far beyond the Cold War. A large swath of the US ended up gutted of jobs, intellectual property, and a voice in governing. "Middleman" States on the coasts did very well as income inequality rose.

The nature of most threats today are not well contained by that system. As such the huge patronage networks feeding Europe aren't doing people in the US very much good except where they have a hand in the till.

So I'd be curious what substantial benefit the people of the US get in return for NATO membership and funding today.

 

[Susannah]

From what i am reading today, it is sounding like Zelenskyy has been making the rounds of the European nations as well as Canada, and asking them to support his war in Ukraine. With the United States no longer contributing to any wars, a lot of NATO’s funding is going to be gone, and it is looking more and more like we may drop out if Europe wants to continue the wars.
An interesting thing is that these European leaders will now be sending in troops and weapons, as well as financing the war; so the European people are probably not going to like that part once their own people are sent there to die fighting Zelenskyy’s war.

Another thing to consider, is that most of Europe gets their oil from Russia. So, if they announce they are going to back Ukraine in this war, Russia may stop selling oil to the countries that support Ukraine.

It’s all very interesting, Yvonne. I’m quite happy for other leaders to take on complete support of Ukraine. I hope their citizens will be too. Maybe we will hear their opinions since this is an international forum.

 

[Susannah]

I think NATO meant a lot more when the Soviets were in the picture. It kept a lot more countries from falling into bed with them for protection and support, or just to avoid being absorbed.

At the same time the US took on the role of global policeman on the high seas, and threw open domestic markets to Europeans by lowering or eliminating most tariffs and through "most favored" dealings.

Those bribes to remain civil continued far beyond the Cold War. A large swath of the US ended up gutted of jobs, intellectual property, and a voice in governing. "Middleman" States on the coasts did very well as income inequality rose.

The nature of most threats today are not well contained by that system. As such the huge patronage networks feeding Europe aren't doing people in the US very much good except where they have a hand in the till.

So I'd be curious what substantial benefit the people of the US get in return for NATO membership and funding today.

I did find some websites that address the NATO-US relationship yesterday. I just asked a search engine about NATO benefits for the US. You might try that. I didn’t keep the links or I would post them.

The latest issue concerning Europe seems to be a push by the US to move some of our troops out of Europe and into Asia where current threats to our country exist.

Apparently Zelensky is saying he will now sign the agreement with the US with a few changes. Others think he will be removed as Ukraine’s leader. We live in interesting times.

 

[Yvonne Smith]

From what I am reading about the situation, I think that we are into a place where the US has to leave NATO. Since Zelenskyy insists on keeping the war going, and refused any kind of peace deal, we withdrew support for the war.
Then Z went to the European countries, and some of them have agreed to give him money and troops and weapons so he can continue the war.
If NATO gets involved, there is something called Article 5 (or some such name) which requires all the NATO members to join in the conflict, and if the US is part of NATO, then we would be forced to support the war, helping it to continue much longer, and even more people from many countries being killed.

They are already kidnapping people in Ukraine to force them into the army, and those same tactics would soon be happening in other European countries; so financing the war to continue is bad for everyone except the people who are pocketing money from the war. Most of Europe gets their oil from Russia, so siding with Ukraine is going to probably stop that from continuing, or it will go up in price, at the very least.
Z signed a deal for minerals with the UK (from what I read), but when they send people over there to mine the minerals, they will end up being kidnapped and put into the war instead.

If the US leaves NATO, we actually are in a much better position, as far as I can see.
Russia already wants to work out a rare earth minerals deal with us, China is not likely to attack the US, but we can use the money and troops that have gone to NATO to strengthen our own country, just in case it were needed.
No other country in NATO has enough military to help the US much if we were attacked anyway, so we would be on our own regardless. Even Canada is going to be sending money and troops to Ukraine, instead of being aligned with the United States, so they are going to have to scrape up a lot more people for their military now.

 

[Bobby Cole]

From what I am reading about the situation, I think that we are into a place where the US has to leave NATO. Since Zelenskyy insists on keeping the war going, and refused any kind of peace deal, we withdrew support for the war.
Then Z went to the European countries, and some of them have agreed to give him money and troops and weapons so he can continue the war.
If NATO gets involved, there is something called Article 5 (or some such name) which requires all the NATO members to join in the conflict, and if the US is part of NATO, then we would be forced to support the war, helping it to continue much longer, and even more people from many countries being killed.

They are already kidnapping people in Ukraine to force them into the army, and those same tactics would soon be happening in other European countries; so financing the war to continue is bad for everyone except the people who are pocketing money from the war. Most of Europe gets their oil from Russia, so siding with Ukraine is going to probably stop that from continuing, or it will go up in price, at the very least.
Z signed a deal for minerals with the UK (from what I read), but when they send people over there to mine the minerals, they will end up being kidnapped and put into the war instead.

If the US leaves NATO, we actually are in a much better position, as far as I can see.
Russia already wants to work out a rare earth minerals deal with us, China is not likely to attack the US, but we can use the money and troops that have gone to NATO to strengthen our own country, just in case it were needed.
No other country in NATO has enough military to help the US much if we were attacked anyway, so we would be on our own regardless. Even Canada is going to be sending money and troops to Ukraine, instead of being aligned with the United States, so they are going to have to scrape up a lot more people for their military now.

You hit the nail on the head with the reference to Article 5.

If any of the 32 members of NATO get militarily involved in the Ukraine / Russia war, they can indeed invoke Article 5 which would, because of the nature of the treaty, bring all the other countries in NATO into the war.
Ergo, 32 countries (plus Russia) involved in a singular war equals World War III

If the U.S. pulls out of NATO, not only does the entire membership suffer a huge monetary loss but military backing of a Super Power. This singular act could dampen the appetites of membership countries for military action and help impose a more diplomatic solution.

 

[RelaxedFit]

I think a lot of minds could be brought into line simply by selecting a prominent US military base within Europe. Then publish a plan to recall all personnel, strip the place of US assets, and stop paying rent there. None of this leaving so much in the way of arms and materiel behind as certain other "leaders" did elsewhere.

 

[Susannah]

FAFO

Z is now in the finding out stage as Trump has ordered a pause to all US military aid to Ukraine including anything in transit.

I haven't seen anything so far that makes me think Trump is considering pulling out of NATO but .....

Stole the Z from you guys. Now I don't have to ask myself one Y or two.

 

[Yvonne Smith]

FAFO

Z is now in the finding out stage as Trump has ordered a pause to all US military aid to Ukraine including anything in transit.

I haven't seen anything so far that makes me think Trump is considering pulling out of NATO but .....

Stole the Z from you guys. Now I don't have to ask myself one Y or two.

I think that we HAVE to think about leaving NATO at this point, Susannah. We do not want to be forced into a war, and if we stay as part of NATO, and the European countries that are part of NATO go into the war, Article 5 will pull in all the NATO members, whether they want to or not because that is what we would be forced to do.

From what i can see, we are much less likely to have a scaled up war if we do leave NATO, since America has most of the troops, weapons, and financing that has been going into Z’s war.
If the UK now has to fund the war and send their sons (and daughters?) to war, they might be less likely to decide to do that. Already several other European countries have opted out as well.
Great Britain and Germany would be left holding the bag for financing the war and providing troops, because Canada has very little to contribute. They have depended on the US to protect them, which we were glad to do.

 

[Susannah]

I think the rules are different for what members have to do for other members of NATO and what they might do for countries considered to be NATO allies.

NATO has consensus decision making. I'm not sure how they ever agree on anything.

Here's links to what I was reading about NATO.

NATO’s Article 5 Collective Defense Obligations, Explained

Here’s how a conflict in Europe would implicate U.S. defense obligations.

www.brennancenter.org

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_49178.htm

Also, I saw this:

A member of the Ukrainian Parliament has called for impeachment proceedings against Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, asserting that such actions are crucial for the future of the nation’s leadership. Alexander Dubinsky, a member of the Ukrainian Parliament, is calling for an emergency session to initiate impeachment proceedings against Zelenskyy. He accused the Ukrainian president of diplomatic failures, the country’s loss of unconditional U.S. support, and the regime’s complete collapse. “Zelensky has not only failed in foreign policy - he has driven the country into a state where anyone who disagrees with his course faces repression,” he said in a statement.

Ukrainian MP Calls for Crucial Impeachment Proceedings Against Zelenskyy

townhall.com

Maybe Ukraine's parliament will see things differently than Z does.

 

[Susannah]

UK, EU and NATO Partners Launch Massive Wave of Drone Attacks Against Moscow - The Last Refuge

Approximately 60 drones were launched from Ukraine overnight to attack the Russian capital city of Moscow. This is the largest escalation of drone/missile attacks into Russia so far. The attack comes, predictably, as Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Nat Sec Advisor Mike Waltz and President Trump...

theconservativetreehouse.com

The attack comes, predictably, as Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Nat Sec Advisor Mike Waltz and President Trump envoy Steve Witkoff arrive in Saudi Arabia for preliminary face-to-face talks with Ukraine officials. The pattern repeats.

Each time President Trump’s diplomatic team are scheduled to meet with Russia or Ukraine officials in their quest to stop the bloodshed, the intelligence apparatus in control of the NATO proxy war triggers an escalating disruption targeting Russia.

Hitting Moscow with a wave of 60 drones is a major escalation, because face-to-face meetings with U.S and Ukraine officials are at a critical inflection point. Each uptick in the offensive action from Ukraine is directly proportional to the increased seriousness of the peace talks.

-------

The above obviously isn’t from. mainstream media. It is a US based conservative blog.

My point in posting it is that we’ve already seen recent European support for Z in his stand against ending the war with Russia. I add it to this thread because it contains arguments for the US getting out of NATO and staying out of European wars.

I’m hoping for European input as well as US.

 

[RelaxedFit]

Gourd above!

Now I'm hearing bizarre theories that the US is trying to politically destabilize Canada and Europe from to a war of conquest to acquire Canada and Greenland, "a la Putin."

 

[Don Alaska]

I think the rules are different for what members have to do for other members of NATO and what they might do for countries considered to be NATO allies.

NATO has consensus decision making. I'm not sure how they ever agree on anything.

Here's links to what I was reading about NATO.

NATO’s Article 5 Collective Defense Obligations, Explained

Here’s how a conflict in Europe would implicate U.S. defense obligations.

www.brennancenter.org

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_49178.htm

Also, I saw this:

A member of the Ukrainian Parliament has called for impeachment proceedings against Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, asserting that such actions are crucial for the future of the nation’s leadership. Alexander Dubinsky, a member of the Ukrainian Parliament, is calling for an emergency session to initiate impeachment proceedings against Zelenskyy. He accused the Ukrainian president of diplomatic failures, the country’s loss of unconditional U.S. support, and the regime’s complete collapse. “Zelensky has not only failed in foreign policy - he has driven the country into a state where anyone who disagrees with his course faces repression,” he said in a statement.

Ukrainian MP Calls for Crucial Impeachment Proceedings Against Zelenskyy

townhall.com

Maybe Ukraine's parliament will see things differently than Z does.

If you read the citation, it says them members have to AID the nation attacked in whatever manner they choose up to and including armed support. It doesn't obligate the U.S. to go to war with anyone but to assist in whatever way they deem appropriate. NATO also has to go though an Article 4 process first before Article 5 is invoked.