Why does every article writer seem to believe that without the US there can’t be any alliance? Doesn’t matter if it’s not called NATO, there will definitely be an alliance.
The EU has a very similar defense clause to Article 5, and the military budgets of Germany and France alone match that of Russia.
Despite not actually being at war right now.Budgets aren’t everything. Especially not if a good part of it is thrown out of the window for less than useless bureaucracy, corruption and nepotism. (totally not looking at Germany)
The EU’s mutual defence clause is good, but what the EU lacks is a unified command and control structure that NATO has. Also NATO has some geostrategically important member states that aren’t in the EU.
The biggest US contribution to NATO was the nuclear deterrent. This can be considered gone already, because a megalomaniac moron like Trump can’t be trusted with using that deterrent in favour of his allies anyway. The nuclear deterrent of the remaining NATO states is modest at best (only France and UK having nuclear weapons of their own), and that of the UK depends on US support to remain viable, as the UK chose US made Trident missiles as their carrier system, and close cooperation, including using shared technology in warhead development. The UK’s nuclear deterrent therefore is highly dependent on US approval and next to useless as a deterrent against the US.
What makes you think that Russia uses their budget more efficiently than Germany, with less beaurocracy, corruption and nepotism?
And I think France’s 290 nukes should be sufficient deterrent.
That’s enough to nuke earth back into the iron age.
If that’s not deterring an attacker, nothing will.You have a good point about a lacking unified command structure. Although NATO’s structure won’t supersede the member countries’ so you’ll have overlapping authorities and friction in any case.
What makes you think that Russia uses their budget more efficiently than Germany, with less corruption and nepotism?
Of course, they are using it for corruption and nepotism, but still they are buying whatever useful they are buying despite of this orders of magnitude cheaper.
And I think France’s 290 nukes should be sufficient deterrent.
France doesn’t have many carrier systems for a credible second strike. Their strategic deterrent consists of 4 missile submarines, each carrying 16 missiles with 6 warheads each. At most two of those submarines can be armed and at sea at once, (typically, one is at sea at all times, another one is armed in port, ready to put to sea on short notice, while the remaining two are undergoing maintenance or are training) so it’s at best 192 warheads available for a second strike, from only two launch platforms. That’s a lot, but not the level of overkill available to the large nuclear powers, also it relies on the submarine(s) at sea remaining undetected. If an adversary manages to reliably detect and track the submarines, their deterrence value against that adversary approaches zero. With current geopolitical realities, one of the potential adversaries to be deterred are the USA, which do operate a worldwide hydrophone network for submarine detection and tracking, of unknown capabilities. The USA are also ruled by a clique of unhinged megalomaniacs who might be willing to disregard a threat if they only believe hard enough that they can neutralise it.
Honestly, if we’re at a point where Europe’s second strike capability against the US becomes important, then everything we can discuss here will be irrelevant already.
Honestly, if we’re at a point where Europe’s second strike capability against the US becomes important, then everything we can discuss here will be irrelevant already.
The USA have already threatened to invade the territory of a European country. It has been important since then.
I don’t think anyone should worry too much.
1.Mid terms are coming in the US and Trump will lose, badly.
-
Even if they leave NATO, hardly anyone will give 2 shits, unless you’re a sensationalist publication looking for engagement.
-
Where are the Epstein files?
1.Mid terms are coming in the US and Trump will lose, badly.
As if elections still mattered much in the US. The Trump regime has been openly shitting on the law, with little to no pushback from the rest of the political caste. The have already attempted one coup, and that hasn’t harmed them in any way. They are here to stay.
Yeah, the world was surprised about how stupid the US voters are twice! I believe that Trump lost when I see it. In the meantime I’m quite confident in US stupidity and don’t get my hopes up.
-
Or the end of NATO with the US as a member. Nevertheless, Trump’s administration hasn’t been a good partner. It created conflicts with everyone, it destabilized a whole region, it cooked up a crisis that will last many months/years to fully recover, etc. Essentially it created a gigantic mess that will affect everyone on this planet.
Well, if NATO is over at least Putin could withdraw now from Ukraine, as they are not a prospecting candidate anymore for an organization that doesn’t exist anymore, right?
If that’s all what it takes Donnie could’ve ended the war in 24 hours after all, without starting a new one…but here we are, I guess.
The US doesn’t deserve to be in NATO.
You have to ask yourself if killing off NATO was really the point of starting this war in Iran.
Bollocks. Neither Donnie, nor his cronies are capable of such 4D chess moves. They’re so full of themselves, they believe they can waltz into Iran and lead or bully everyone else into joining them.
This is how it went down.
JD: “What can we do to further distract people from the Epstein Files?”
Donnie: “Iran out of ideas, JD!”
JD: “Of course! That’s it!”
Neither Donnie, nor his cronies are capable of such 4D chess moves.
But Donnie’s handlers in the Kremlin might very well be capable of that kind of chess.
NATO has been dead at least (!) since that dude took office for the second time.
And there’s nothing Europe could have done or do about it, as it is not their decision to make. He doesn’t want NATO - and he’ll find the “justifications” for this one way or the other.
If we keep saying that NATO is dead, maybe it will become so. It isn’t, though.
Article 5 was only triggered once, to call for help invading a country that hadn’t even attacked any NATO member.
There’s a UN-supervised demilitarized zone between two NATO members, to keep them from attacking each other.
And a NATO member has recently threatened another NATO member with unprovoked invasion.It’s dead, Jim.
And it’s better to accept that now, than find out only after Russia attacked the Baltics and the US refused to help.
9/11 was an attack on the USA, which still is a NATO member. You could argue the attack was not by Afghanistan, but then Afghanistan was harboring the group that did.
The UN-supervised demilitarized zone on Cyprus is between Cyprus, which is not a NATO member, and North Cyprus, which is neither a NATO member, nor recognized by any NATO member except Turkey.
So you made three factual claims that are all three false. I will leave it as an exercise to the reader whether they carry the conclusion in any way.
Yes please. The EU can do its own collective defense without all the US imperialism.
NATO with US participation was doomed the moment that orange shit stain and Russian asset was allowed to become US president the second time.
