[tekknik]

Trump doesn’t want to leave NATO, that would be dumb. He wants those not “paying their fair share” to pay more or the US will leave. It’s a negotiating tactic. So if you don’t want the US to leave NATO and you’re in a NATO country then get them to spend more on NATO.

[Epa095]

You probably know this, but just in case: NATO is not a club you pay 2% in to for protection. The 2% is the required spending on YOUR OWN defence. In practice this benefits USA as a major weapon producer, at least it has until now. I have a feeling Europe feels less certain that they will buy American next time.

[tekknik]

OK? how did this statement change anything I posted?

I guess you didn’t know this, the idea is strength in numbers. If you can’t provide for personal and collective defense, gtfo.

[gcr]

Doesn't strength in numbers contradict your idea of kicking out the weak?

When I hear phrases like strength in numbers, I think of elephants. When a herd of elephants watches lions circle their community, the strong ones stand around their young to protect them.

That's analogous to "strong" countries subsidizing ones who can't provide for themselves, because having an allied presence is helpful.

[tekknik]

Sure, but if they’re not pulling their weight then they’re a detriment. Have you served next to a foreign NATO soldier? I have. I wasn’t impressed. Step up your spending or gtfo.

[lukas099]

It’s not that they can’t protect themselves, it’s that they would rather spend the money on their own social programs.

[tekknik]

exactly

[Epa095]

Your wording, both the use of "paying their fair share" and "get them to spend more on NATO"-part made it sounds like countries actually pay money into NATO. Trump also makes it sound like that, and he certainly gave the impression that if other NATO countries started "paying more" (aka spending more) that would mean more money for the US. The fact is that as long as the USA wants to be able to win two world wars at once, they still need their astronomic millitary budget, and what tiny European countries spend makes no difference. My comment was not about "changing your post", it was to make sure nobody else is confused about this after reading your post.

When that is said, its good that most NATO countries are hitting and exceeding 2%. It's clear that Europe can not rely on USA to be the "world police", we need to be be able to defend ourself.

Also, friendly reminder that article 5 has been used exactly once, and that was to defend USA. Soldiers of my country has died defending USA.

[tekknik]

you either want the US to protect you, or not. we are the absolute military power on the planet by a long shot. you want to be a part of it or not?

[loup-vaillant]

> In practice this benefits USA as a major weapon producer, at least it has until now.

This feels like a club you pay 2% for protection…

[tekknik]

so stop, protect yourself. how far do you think you’ll get?

[loup-vaillant]

Considering that the biggest threat to independence is probably the USA themselves… I'm guessing not very far. You'll probably be okay if you cater to businesses and foreign investments, but if you stray too far from the USA's preferred economic model you may suddenly find yourself subject to astroturfed protests, coup attempts, or even straight up military intervention.

Chile's attempt at lukewarm socialism didn't fail from internal causes. Cuba didn't brought embargo on themselves. To name but two. Considering the USA has been at war for almost the entirety of it's history, there must be a couple more.

"Club" was a tame euphemism I only took from the comment I was replying to. I think "Mafia" would be more appropriate.

[bee_rider]

I disagree with the guy you are responding to as well. But I don’t think he’s saying that Trump wants people to pay the 2% like it is a subscription fee. I think he’s just saying that Trump is using the possibility of leaving as a threat in the hopes that countries will meet their 2% obligation.

As to what Trump actually is saying, I have no idea, he’s hard to parse.

[tekknik]

he’s really not that hard to parse, you just have to stop jumping to conclusions.

pay up or gtfo.

[hfsh]

And by 'pay more' he means 'buy more US weapons'. NATO is a conveniently captive market for the US arms manufacturers, and no way they're going to want to pull out of that while they still have stock to sell.

[tekknik]

you’re free to make your own weapons, plenty of NATO countries do.

[codersfocus]

Turkey bought Russian weapons and wasn't kicked out. They were barred from buying more US weapons for a while.

[AndyJames]

Before 2020 elections John Bolton said that Trump doesn't see the point for NATO and will consider withdrawing if he wins in 2020. Because of that a NATO Support at was passed in Congress to block the president from single handly withdraw the US from NATO. That was over 4 years ago, hopefully he changed his mind.

[tekknik]

as a veteran i also don’t see the full point. i understand the intent behind it but the actual implementation is garbage. the US is paying large sums of money to protect land we don’t own. but if we very other NATO country steps up well then the collective defense works.

[kyleee]

Reminder that Bolton is an insane person, so who knows if what he says publicly about Trump’s intentions are true.

[timeon]

Maybe EU countries should be those that leave NATO so they won't be blackmailed. They have some nuclear capable countries already. It would be much weaker alliance but with nuclear warhead one just need to press the button. Since EU states are getting more and more populists leaders this can happen eventually.

[tekknik]

please do, Europe has a fraction of the military might the US does, and nobody owns more nukes than Russia and the US. Russia is also a 3 min flight time to Europe, so you have a literal 0% chance of stopping a Russian nuclear attack. please leave or step up.

[sensanaty]

He was very correct in calling out EU countries on Russian gas reliance (which is still somehow an issue!), and also on the EU being way too comfortable with letting the US pick up the slack when it came to our defense.

The EU SHOULD be spending the agreed upon 2%, all this weasley shit the EU gov'ts are pulling is a complete joke considering the massive Bear in the room that is Russia.

[theGnuMe]

My theory is that we will leave Nato because he won’t want war when Putin pushes into Europe. His base doesn’t care frankly. The direct cost is too high and they can’t see past grocery prices.

That will all depend on how worn down the Russian military actually is and how long it needs to rebuild. And at any rate the threat of Russian military action will be used to punish any European country that doesn’t accept Russian influence. It will be used on former Soviet republics.

The only thing that may stop Trump and saving Europe is his ego now that he has effective immunity from prosecution as Putin is no longer a threat to him.

We will see who the bigger narcissist actually is. Putin is probably smarter though.

We need some seriously smart republicans.

Countries with right wing Russian aligned puppets may prevent direct conflict by appeasement but nevertheless they will be under Putin’s control.

China will continue being China. Where semiconductors fall will be interesting as will access to battery tech.

Trump will print money to appease his base and we will see exactly how economic forces evolve beyond control.

Buying crypto now seems like a good idea.

[tekknik]

> My theory is that we will leave Nato because he won’t want war when Putin pushes into Europe.

I stopped reading here. If Putin expands the war it will be nuclear. No country will survive. WW3 is coming soon.